\r 


ess 


DfC  14  J995 


.C43 
184^ 


THE 


HIEEAECHICAL  DESPOTISM. 

SOPHISMS 

OF   THE 

APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION 

EXAMINED   AND   REFUTED 

BY 

THE    WORD    OF    GOD. 

LECTURE    IV. 


REV.  GEORGE  B.  CHEEVER. 


NEW  YORK  : 
PUBLISHED  BY  SAXTON  &  MILES: 

No.  205  Broadway. 
BOSTON— SAXTON,   PEIRCE   &  CO. 

1844. 


NOV    SO  1992 


HIEEARCHICAL  DESPOTISM. 

SOPHISMS 

OF   THE 

APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION 

EXAMINED   AND   REFUTED 

BY 

THE    WORD    OF    GOD. 

LECTURE    IV. 


BY 

/ 

REV.  GEORGE  B.  CHEEVER. 


NEW  YORK  : 
PUBLISHED  BY  SAXTON  &  MILES, 

No.  205  Broadway. 
BOSTON-SAXTON,  PEIRCE  «fe  CO. 


844. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844,  by 

SAXTON  &  MILES, 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District    Court    for  the    Southern  District  of 
Npw  York. 


8.    W.    BENEDICT    &    CO.,    PRINT 
128  Fulton  Street 


INTRODUCTION 


It  was  a  declaration  of  Milton,  worthy  to  be  written 
in  every  language  in  the  world,  that  "  to  us  nothing  can 
be  catholic  or  universal  in  religion,  but  what  the  Scrip- 
ture teaches  ;   whatsoever  without  scripture  pleads 

TO  BE  universal  IN  THE  CHURCH,  IN  BEING  UNIVERSAL,  IS 

BUT  THE  MORE  SCHISMATIC AL."  This  principle  every 
generous  Protestant  will  act  upon,  in  argument  as  well 
as  in  practice. 

It  may  be,  however,  that  in  regard  to  this  lecture  some 
may  think  the  author  not  sufficiently  guarded,  in  de*.  elop- 
ing the  absolute  and  entire  freedom  of  the  New  '^  ..• 
ment  from  any  commanded  form  as  to  church  government 
and  ministerial  ordination.  I  have  endeavored  simply, 
and  without  prejudice,  to  follow  what  is  written  in  the 
Word  of  God,  and  to  mark  what  is  not  written  there, 
which  nevertheless  the  hierarchical  and  spiritual  despotism 
seeks  to  enforce  upon  the  conscience.  The  apostolical 
successionists  have  made  out  of  ordination  by  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  a  diocesan  bishop  a  sacramental 
mystery  as  inscrutable  and  powerful  as  any  piece  of 
Indian  or  Oriental  magic.  I  have  shown  that  there  is 
not  one  passage  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the 
laying  on  of  hands  is  mentioned  as  a  ceremony  accom- 
panying introduction  into  the  Christian  ministry.  The 
ceremony  itself  is  to  be  regarded  as  suitable,  becoming, 
and  solemn ;  and  if  the  Christian  church  agree  to  adopt 
it  in  the  appointment  of  her  ministers,  it  is  a  beautiful 
and  appropriate  rite.  But  it  is  not  essential,  not  com- 
manded in  Scripture.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  it  was 
ever  used  by  the  Apostles  in  the  appointment  of  elders 


IV 


NTRODUCTION. 


in  the  churches.  I  have  stated  this  so  strongly,  that 
some  persons,  accustomed  to  regard  this  ceremony  as 
essential  to  ministerial  ordination,  may  deem  that  I  have 
gone  too  far.  I  would  merely  beg  that  they  closely 
examine  the  Scriptures  on  this  point,  before  they  decide. 
In  considering  the  wickedness  of  the  exclusive  and 
intolerant  spirit  of  Episcopacy,  it  is  important  to  remem- 
ber that  we  are  in  the  nineteenth  century  of  the  publi- 
cation and  profession  of  the  Christian  religion.  We  are 
in  the  midst,  also,  of  an  age  of  missions,  or  what  we  had 
hoped  would  prove  such,  in  which  the  blessed  and  glori- 
ous ministration  of  the  Spirit  abroad  might  be  expected 
to  check  and  put  to  shame  such  intolerant  enforcement  of 
a  religion  of  forms  at  home.  As  a  nation,  also,  we  are 
sprung  from  the  loins  of  an  ancestry,  who  resisted,  even 
to  the  death,  that  same  religious  intolerance,  that  same 
arrogance  of  formalism,  and  who  also  suffered  from  it 
even  to  the  death.  We  are  in  a  country,  hkewise,  where 
we  have  proclaimed  and  beheved  that  the  principles  of 
religious  liberty  were  known  and  acted  on  in  such  per- 
fection of  purity  as  never  any  people  in  any  age  of  the 
world  have  given  to  their  development.  Our  position, 
our  parentage,  our  discipline,  our  government,  our  insti- 
tutions, all  God's  great  and  gracious  providences  with  us, 
all  the  flood  of  light  and  dearly  purchased  experience  he 
hath  poured  out  upon  us,  should  combine  to  make  us 
ashamed  of  an  exhibition  of  religious  formalism  and  in- 
tolerance, which  might  have  been  expected  in  the  old 
corrupt,  papistical,  monarchical  establishments  of  Europe, 
but  which  is  as  incongruous  here  as  darkness  is  with 
light,  and  just  as  inconsistent,  everywhere,  with  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel.  Our  Episcopal  friends  will,  if  they 
are  at  all  candid,  pardon  our  severity ;  if  they  will  give, 
they  must  also  expect  to  receive. 


SOPHISMS 


APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION, 


NATURE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 

SIMPLICITY  AND  POWER  OF  THE  APPEAL  TO  SCRIPTURE. 

I  NEED  make  no  apology  for  going  straight  to  the 
Scriptures  to  find  divine  truth  and  divine  obligation. 
Whatever  is  binding  upon  us  as  Christians,  whatever 
is  essentia]  to  a  Christian  church,  must  be  recorded 
there ;  if  it  be  not  there,  the  assumption  of  divine 
right  is  false.  The  v^hole  fabric  objure  divino  Episco- 
pacy is  built  upon  sophisms,  which  not  only  find  no 
support  in  the  Scriptures,  but  are  contradicted  therein. 
If  you  knock  away  these  sophisms  the  fabric  falls. 
And  hence  the  manifest  unwillingness  of  Episcopalians, 
who  assume  the  divine  right  of  their  order,  to  come  to 
the  Scriptures,  point  by  point,  and  examine  texts  in 
their  simple,  literal  construction.  Hence  their  love  of 
2 


FOURTH    LECTURE 


the  Fathers,  and  their  appeal  to  them  as  umpires ;  an 
appeal  the  more  confident  in  proportion  to  the  distance 
between  them  and  the  Apostles,  and  the  manifest  in- 
crease of  the  corruptions  of  Christianity.  Who  are  the 
Fathers  ?  I  shall  answer  in  the  striking  language  of 
Milton,  "  Whatever  time,  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind 
chance  hath  drawn  from  old  to  this  present,  m  her  huge 
drag-net,  whether  fish  or  sea-weed,  shell  or  shrubs, 
unpicked,  unchosen,  those  are  the  Fathers."  Of  what 
value  is  an  appeal  to  them  1  Let  their  own  grave  discus- 
sion, how  it  may  be  lawful  to  use  falsehood  as  a  medicine 
for  the  advantage  of  those  who  require  such  a  method, 
determine.  It  is  among  these  volumes,  full  of  interpola- 
tions, forgeries,  and  lying,  pious  frauds,  that  the  advo- 
cates of  prelatical  Episcopacy  love  to  hide  themselves  ; 
it  is  by  the  light  of  such  interpreters  that  they  wish  to 
investigate  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Thus  they  mingle 
their  controversy  with  heterogeneous  matter  ;  they  play 
about  in  the  bogs  and  morasses  of  the  Fathers  and  the 
standards  of  the  churches,  where  the  questions  are  end- 
less, the  paths  interminable;  thus  they  encompass 
themselves  with  what  Milton  well  calls  "  a  fog  of 
witnesses." 

I  am  sometimes  reminded,  by  the  course  of  this  con- 
troversy, of  the  experience  of  the  celebrated  Mr.  Scrope 
in  fishing  for  salmon  in  the  river  Tweed.  He  had  one 
day  a  bite  from  a  fish  so  large  and  obstinate,  that  he 
found  his  line  would  not  have  strength  to  bring  him  to, 
if  he  attempted  it ;  and  his  only  resource  was  either  to 
lose  his  spoil,  or  to  plunge  into  the  stream,  and  wading, 
running,  floundering,  at  the  risk  of  his  life,  to  follow  him 
and  tire  him  out.     And  so  the  indefatigable  sportsman 


NATURE     OF     THE     ARGUMENT.  ' 

went,  over  cascades  and  rocks,  through  deep  water  and 
shallow,  down  the  stream  for  miles,  the  greater  part  of 
a  sportsman's  day,  till  the  fish  gave  in,  and  the  prize 
was  secured  by  a  protracted  chase,  which  would  have 
been  lost  at  the  outset  by  an  attempt  to  bring  him  to 
the  bank  at  the  first  point  in  the  conflict. 

Just  so  witli  this  controversy ;  if  you  engage  in  it 
anywhere  out  of  the  Scriptures,  you  will  have  to  be 
dragged  through  swamps  and  quagmires,  over  cascades 
and  precipices ;  and  if  you  secure  your  salmon,  it  will 
have  to  be  done  almost  at  the  risk  of  your  life,  and 
with  great  patience  of  contradiction.  You  will  have 
to  flounder 

O'er  bog  or  steep,  through  strait,  rough,  dense  or  rare, 

through  the  dark  ages,  and  the  canon  law,  and  the 
church  standards,  and  the  chaos  of  the  Fathers,  where 

At  length  a  universal  hubbub  wild 
Of  stunning  sounds,  and  voices  all  confused. 
Borne  through  the  hollow  dark,  assaults  the  ear 
With  loudest  vehemence. 

Thither,  to  continue  the  illustration  from  Milton,  the 
undaunted  jtire  divino  controversialist  plies  his  way  j 

Undaunted  to  meet  there  whatever  power 
Or  spirit  of  the  nethermost  abyss 
Might  in  that  noise  reside,  of  whom  to  ask 
Which  way  the  nearest  coast  of  darkness  lies. 
Bordering  on  light. 

For  this  is  the  most  definite  question  you  can  ask  of 
the  Fathers,  which  way  the  nearest  coast  of  darkness  lies, 
bordering  on  light  ?    And  here,  in  this  dim  twilight, 


FOURTH     LECTURE. 


•where  the  shades  of  darkness  from  the  thickening  cor- 
ruptions of  Christianity  begin  to  gather,  are  the  out- 
posts of  diocesan  episcopacy,  here  are  its  sentinels,  here 
is  its  camp,  here,  outside   the   limits  of  Apostolical 
Christianity,  is  its  armory,  here  are  its  weapons  of 
defence  and  aggrandizement,  and  here  its  youthful  stu- 
dents exercise  that  discipline  in  prelatical  ecclesiastical 
history,  which  accustoms  them  to  put  tradition  before 
the  Bible,  to  judge  and  interpret  the  Bible  by  tradition, 
and  under  cover  of  a  breastwork  of  patristical  tradi- 
tion to  come  to  those  texts  that  are  against  them.   But 
the  true  Biblical  student  loves  to  take  his  stand-point 
in  the  Bible  itself.     Here  we  take  our  stand-point,  and 
from  this  point,  and  not  from  the  light  of  corrupt  ages, 
we  survey  and  detect  the  sophisms,  on  which  the  fabric 
of  episcopal  exclusiveness  is  built.     It  is  in  this  way 
that  I  mean  to  carry  on  my  argument,  in  showing,  one 
by  one,  the  nature  of  these  sophisms,  and  applying  to 
them,  for  this  purpose,  the  infallible  text  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  in  their  simple,  common  sense  construction. 
In  other  words,  I  shall  put  the  pretensions  of  dioce- 
san episcopacy,  one  by  one,  into  the  crucible  of  the 
Word  of  God,  and  if  they  come  out  gold,  well  and  good, 
we  will  all  use  them ;  but  if  they  come  out  dross,  we 
will  throw  them  away.     And  in  this  process,  let  one 
thing  be  guarded  against,  and  that  is,  the  acceptance 
of  glosses  or  constructions  fut  vpon  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  do  not  grow  out  of  them,  cannot  be  frund 
in  them.     For  example,  Paul  says  to  Timothy,  in  his 
second  epistle,  after  exhorting  him  to  be  strong  in  the 
grace  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  ''  And  the  things  which 
thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same 


NATURE     OP     THE     ARGUMENT.  9 

commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach 
others  also."  The  passage  refers  manifestly  to  the  in- 
structing of  teachers  in  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  for 
their  work.  There  is  neither  word  nor  intimation  in 
regard  to  ordination,  or  the  power  of  ordination  in  it, 
much  less  as  to  any  succession  of  such  power.  The 
course  of  the  argument  stops  at  teaching,  not  at  or- 
daining. It  is  not  said,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faith- 
ful men,  who  shall  be  able  to  ordain  others  also,  but, 
to  teach  others  also.  Now,  here  would  be  a  gloss  or 
construction  forced  upon  the  passage,  which  it  will 
not  bear,  if  you  attempt  to  argue  from  it  the  power  of 
ordination ;  much  more  absurd  is  it,  if  you  argue  that 
Timothy  alone  had  that  power,  and  was  here  com- 
manded to  commit  it  to  others,  that  they  in  their  turn 
might  ordain  others  also.  I  might  just  as  well  argue 
from  Timothy  iv.  13,  that  the  cloak  which  Paul  left  at 
Troas  was  a  peculiar  surplice,  necessary  to  be  used  in  or- 
daining elders,  and  that  one  of  the  books  he  sent  for  was 
a  church  liturgy,  prepared  by  the  Saviour,  out  of  which 
Paul  must  read  the  ordinational  service.  Indeed  there 
is  almost  nothing  which  might  not  be  proved  from 
Scripture,  were  we  permitted  to  impress  upon  it  our 
own  foreign  constructions,  instead  of  simply  drawing 
from  it  the  meaning  contained  in  it. 

You  have  all  heard  of  constructive  treason,  or  mak- 
ing a  man  guilty  of  treason  by  putting  such  a  con- 
struction on  the  statute  as  it  w^as  never  intended  to 
bear.  Now  there  is  such  a  thing  as  making  a  con- 
structive episcopacy,  inasmuch  as  no  form  of  diocesan 
episcopacy  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  by  putting 
thus  upon  certain  passages  a  construction  which  they 


10  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

will  not  bear,  and  evidently  were  never  intended  to 
bear.  Suppositions  and  conjectural  assumptions  are 
made  to  do  the  work,  which  plain  Scriptural  texts  and 
the  whole  tenor  of  the  Scriptures  refuse  to  accomplish. 
The  prelatical  successionists  use  the  word  of  God  like 
dishonest  players  with  loaded  dice.  Just  so  with  the 
advocates  of  episcopacy  by  divine  ri^ht,  in  the  artifi- 
cial, forced  use  they  make  of  texts  of  Scripture.  Their 
dice  are  loaded. 


SOPHISM   FIRST.       CONSTRUCTION  FORCED   UPON    THE     COM- 
MISSION  OF   THE    DISCIPLES    IN    MATTHEW   XXVIIL   19. 

(I.)  The  first  sophism  to  be  exposed  is  in  the  con- 
struction forced  upon  the  commission  of  the  Apos- 
tles. The  advocates  of  prelatical  episcopacy  begin 
with  the  assertion  that  the  commission  to  preach  was 
restricted  to  the  Apostles,  and,  by  a  perfectly  gratuitous 
unauthorized  inference,  to  those  whom  the  Apostles 
should  ordain  with  the  same  commission.  Now  it  hap- 
pens that  in  that  commission  there  is  not  one  word  said 
about  ordaining  others,  nor  any  power  given  so  to  do. 
If,  therefore,  you  restrict  the  commission  to  preach  sim- 
ply to  the  Apostles,  you  must  also  show  some  other 
passage  empowering  them  as  plainly  to  commission 
others,  or  you  can  have  no  succession  at  all.  The 
commission  to  preach  is  a  totally  different  thing  from  a 
commission  to  appoint  preachers ;  it  no  more  implies 
the  authority  to  appoint  others,  or  to  exclude  others, 
than  the  commission  of  Attorney-general  of  the  United 
States  implies  the  authority  to  appoint  all  the  members 
of  the  legal  profession,  and  to  exclude  all  others  from 


S  0  P  H  I  SM     F  I  R  S  T  .  11 

the  practice  of  the  law.  Inferences  of  this  kind  are 
not  admissible  ;  but  if  they  were,  then  we  should  with 
the  same  right  infer  that  all  to  whom  the  Apostles 
preached,  would  and  did,  in  receiving  the  gospel,  re- 
ceive therewith  the  commission  to  preach  the  gospel. 

But  we  need  not  resort  to  inferences.  From  a  strict 
and  minute  comparison  of  the  Evangelists,  it  is  clear, 
first,  that  this  commission  to  preach  the  gospel  was  a 
thing  separate  from  the  apostolic  commission,  it  was 
not  given  to  constitute  apostles.  This  is  manifest  from 
the  fact  that  Thomas  was  not  present  with  the  other 
disciples,  when  the  commission  to  preach  the  gospel 
was  given  them.  The  Apostles  had  had  this  commis- 
sion before  ;  it  was  a  part  of  their  apostolic  office  ;  but 
it  was  not  restricted  to  them,  and  it  was  now  given  to 
others  besides  them.  A  minute  examination  of  the 
Evangelists,  I  say,  demonstrates  this.  There  were 
other  disciples  besides  the  Apostles  present,  when  our 
Lord  said  to  the  disciples.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  There  were,  espe- 
cially, the  two  disciples  who  had  walked  to  Emraaus, 
whose  understandings  the  Lord  had  opened,  and  to 
whom  he  had  expounded,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  the  things 
concerning  himself.  To  these  men,  as  well  as  to  the 
eleven,  the  Lord  addressed  the  commission  to  preach 
the  gospel.  But  besides  these,  there  were  others  with 
them,  to  and  with  whom,  while  they  spake,  Jesus  him- 
self stood  in  the  midst,  and  said  unto  them,  unto  the 
disciples  there  assembled,  Peace  be  unto  you  :  as  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  opened  their  understandings 
that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures.     Moreover, 


FOURTH    LECTUREo 

if  you  take  the  account  of  this  commission  in  Matthew 
alone,  it  is  evident  that  there  were  other  disciples  to 
whom  it  was  addressed  besides  the  eleven  ;  the  "  some 
who  doubted"  were  certainly  in  addition  to  the  eleven  j 
besides,  there  were  those  whom  the  Lord  had  appoint- 
ed  to  meet  him  in  that  mountain,  and  amonoj  them, 
doubtless,  were  those  hundred  and  twenty  disciples, 
whom  we  find  immediately  on  their  return  from  this 
meeting,  gathered  with  Peter  and  the  other  apostles. 
There  were  all  those  men  to  whom  Peter  refers,  and 
whom  he  describes  in  Acts  i.  21,  22,"  men  which  have 
companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went 
in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of 
John,  unto  that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us." 
These  are  the  men  to  whom  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  giving 
his  last  coinmission,  said  (Luke  xxiv.  48,)  Ye  are  wit- 
nesses of  these  things.  To  these  men,  as  well  as  to  the 
Apostles,  was  the  commission  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  ad- 
dressed. The  argument  on  this  point,  from  a  compari- 
son of  the  Evangelists  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
eannot  be  refuted. 

SECOND  LINE    OF   ARGUMENT. 

But  even  if  this  were  less  clear,  there  is  another  line 
of  argument,  which  overturns  the  doctrine  of  the  apos- 
tolical succession  from  its  foundation,  which  is  the  ar- 
gument drawn  from  the  appointment  of  the  seventy. 
He  must  have  hardihood  indeed  who  should  assert  that 
these  seventy  were  not  sent  out  with  a  commission  to 
preach  the  gospel.  He  that  heareth  you,  said  Christ, 
heareth  me.  And  he  must  have  equal  hardihood,  who 
should  say  that  this  commission  was  ever  taken  back. 


S  0  P  H  I  S  M     F  I  R  S  T  .  13 

It  was  confirmed,  as  is  manifest  from  Luke  x.  19 ; 
and  these  seventy,  as  is  manifest  from  Acts  i.  21,  22, 
were  all  present  when  our  Lord's  last  commission  was 
given,  which  commission,  if  it  was  given  to  the  Apos- 
tles, was  given  also  to  them.  Whether  it  were  or 
were  not,  they  were  already  preachers  of  the  gospel, 
commissioned  by  Christ,  and  remained  such  to  the  end 
of  life.  And  if  our  blessed  Lord  said  to  any  of  his 
ministers,  he  said  to  all,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world ;  to  the  end  of  the  world  with  all 
who  preach  the  gospel.  He  could  not  mean  to  restrict 
this  promise  to  those  preachers  then  before  him,  for  they 
would  not  live  to  the  end  of  the  world ;  he  does  not 
restrict  it  to  those  whom  these  persons  should  ordain, 
for  he  here  gives  them  no  commission  to  ordain  others, 
but  to  preach  to  others ;  he  says  no  syllable  about  or- 
dination, nor  hints  at  it ;  but  he  doessay,  I  am  with  all 
that  preach  my  gospel  to  the  end  of  time.  The  question 
how  they  are  to  become  preachers,  is  not  even  remotely 
mingled  with  this  commission,  nor  involved  in  it ;  it 
had  been  settled  long  ago,  when  God  said,  "  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit  upon  your  children,  and  your  young  men 
shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams, 
and  even  your  servants  and  handmaidens  shall  prophe- 
sy." And  what  unparalleled  absurdity  to  suppose  that 
our  Lord  was  here  involving  ordination  by  apostles  as 
the  only  succession  of  this  ministry,  when  his  own 
blessed  Spirit  was  already  hovering  over  Jerusalem  to 
make  a  hundred  and  twenty  preachers  at  once,  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance,  preachers  who  never  should 
have,  as  they  never  should  need,  any  other  ordination  ! 
What  absurdity,  when  in  the  very  terms  of  the  coin- 
2* 


14  FOURTHLECTURE. 

mission  he  had  said  that  not  those  whom  the  Apostles 
should  ordain  should  be  preachers,  but  those  who  should 
believe  in  the  Apostles'  preaching ;  not  a  word  of  any 
duty  to  appoint  other  preachers,  but  simply.  Preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  "  And  then  signs  shall  fol- 
low," not  them  who  are  ordained,  but  "  them  who 
"believe.  In  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils,  they 
shall  speak  with  new  tongues."  Speak  what  ?  The 
gospel  of  Christ.  They  shall  preach  the  gospel,  and 
preach  it  too  with  miraculous  power,  not,  if  they  are 
ordained,  but  simply,  if  they  believe.  I  would  not 
trust  that  man  to  interpret  the  simplest  text  of  Scripture, 
who  can  assert,  in  the  face  of  all  this,  that  the  promise 
of  Christ  was  based  upon  the  condition  of  ordination  by 
the  apostles ;  a  condition  not  only  not  hinted  at,  but 
absolutely  false  and  impossible,  as  is  evident  both  from 
the  context  and  the  preceding  and  succeeding  history. 

THIRD    LINE    OF    ARGUMENT. 

There  is  another  passage,  which  sheds  a  striking 
light  upon  our  argument,  a  light  the  more  powerful  for 
being  incidental.  It  is  in  Luke  ix.  59,  60.  Our  Lord 
had  commanded  a  certain  individual  to  follow  him.  It 
w^as  an  authoritative  command  of  discipleship.  "  Fol- 
low me.  But  he  said,  Lord,  suffer  me  first  to  go  and 
bury  my  father.  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Let  the  dead 
bury  their  dead  ;  but  go  thou,  and  preach  the  king- 
dom OF  God  !"  Now  according  to  the  hypothesis  of 
prelatical  episcopacy  our  Blessed  Lord  must  have  said 
to  the  Apostles,  My  lord  bishops,  here  is  work  for  you 
to  do ;  take  this  man  and  ordain  him,  for  his  commis- 
sion to  preach  must  come  only  through  you.     What 


SOPHISMFIRST.  15 

extreme  of  absurdity  !  If  this  man  obeyed  Christ,  was 
he  a  preacher  or  was  he  not  ?  And  when  our  Blessed 
Lord  shortly  afterwards  issued  his  last  command  to 
tbe  disciples,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,  did  this  command  take 
away  and  nullify  this  man's  commission  ?  It  must 
have  done  so,  or  there  was  a  preacher  of  the  gospel 
out  of  the  line  of  apostolical  succession.  Did  that 
command  take  away  also,  and  nullify,  the  commission 
of  the  seventy,  given  and  confirmed  by  the  Saviour '? 
It  must  have  done  so,  or  here  were  seventy  preachers 
of  the  gospel  out  of  the  line  of  apostolical  succession. 
Again,  the  hypothesis  of  prelatical  episcopacy  as- 
serts that  the  commission  to  preach  the  gospel  involved 
the  commission  to  ordain  others  also,  if  not,  then  the 
Apostles  had  no  commission  to  ordain.  But  if  it  did, 
then  the  commission  of  the  seventy  involved  the  com- 
mission to  ordain  others  also,  so  that  here  are  two  dis- 
tinct lines  of  succession  already  established,  having 
twelve  heads  in  one,  and  seventy  in  the  other.  And 
now  let  any  episcopal  bishop  tell  us,  if  he  can,  to  which 
of  these  two  lines,  constituted  on  his  own  hypothesis, 
he  traces  up  his  own  authority  to  preach  the  gospel  i 
Or  at  a  much  later  period,  let  him  tell  us,  if  he  can, 
to  which  of  the  two  distinct  and  opposite  reigning  lines 
of  popes,  bishops  and  councils,  he  traces  the  passage 
of  the  apostolical  commission  down  upon  his  own  head 
and  into  his  own  palm  for  ordination!  That  such 
opposing  lines  existed  through  whole  generations  is 
matter  of  undisputed  history,  and  according  to  the 
episcopal  hypothesis,  one  must  have  been  right,  and 
one  wrong,  or  both  were  illegitimate,  for  each  excom- 
municated the  other ;  but  from  one  or  the  other,  every 


16  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

prelatiral  bishop,  every  man  in  the  succession,  mnst 
draw  his  authority.  They  are,  therefore,  every  one  of 
them  vitiated  and  rendered  null  by  this  very  uncertainty. 
According  to  the  principles  of  common  sense  and  com- 
mon law,  they  are  every  one  bastardized  j  for  of  two 
distinct  and  opposite  lines  of  ancestry,  they  cannot  tell 
to  which  they  belong,  nor,  with  any  certainty,  whether 
they  can  claim  parentage  from  either. 

FOURTH  LINE    OF    ARGUMENT. 

But  there  is  another  line  of  argument  still,  pursued 
equally  from  the  Scripture,  which  completes  this  to 
demonstration,  and  which  shows  that  the  greater  the 
certainty  with  which  the  prelatical  successors  and  their 
trains  of  ordination  trace  themselves  to  either  of  these 
lines,  the  greater  also  is  the  certainty  that  they  are  out 
of  the  true  line  of  the  ministry  of  Christ.  The  more 
they  confirm  their  own  hypothesis,  the  more  indis- 
putably they  prove  themselves  to  be  unauthorized  in- 
truders into  the  pastorship  and  government  of  Christ's 
flock.  The  argument  is  of  immense  importance,  com- 
mencing in  the  first  verse  of  the  tenth  chapter  of  the 
gospel  according  to  John,  in  the  words  of  Jesus. 

"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  entereth  not 
by  the  door  into  the  sheep-fold,  but  climbeth  up  some 
other  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and  a  robber.  But  he 
that  entereth  in  by  the  door,  is  the  Shepherd  of  the 
sheep.  I  AM  THE  DOOR."  Mark  here,  the  Lord  Jesus 
does  not  say.  The  Apostles  are  the  door,  or.  Ye,  my 
Apostles,  are  the  door,  or.  The  Apostolic  Commission  is 
the  door,  or,  The  line  of  succession  from  the  Apostles  is 
the  door ;  but  I  am  the  door.     Christ  himself  is  the 


80PHISMFIRST.  17 

door.  Then  every  Pope  and  Bishop  not  introduced  by 
Christ,  not  ordained  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  thief  and 
a  robber.  And  what  are  they,  whom  thieves  and  rob- 
bers ordain  ?  What  ordinational  virus  is  that  which 
passes  through  the  wolfish  hearts,  and  through  the 
tainted  palms,  and  down  upon  the  bald  pates  of  thieves 
and  robbers  ?  Now  we  can  show  you  hundreds  of 
instances,  not  solitary,  but  continued  from  generation  to 
generation,  in  which  men  have  been  themselves  or- 
dained, and  have  ordained  others,  who,  had  they  lived 
in  the  Apostles'  day,  would  have  been  anathematized  as 
Simon  Magus,  and  had  they  lived  in  our  day,  would 
have  been  sent  to  the  state's  prison  for  life,  or  hanged 
upon  the  gallows,  for  their  crimes !  Whoremongers 
and  adulterers,  murderers  and  liars,  we  can  name  to 
you  in  the  boasted  prelatical  succession  from  the  Apos- 
tles, generation  after  generation,  with  not  one  pious 
personage  known  of  to  break  the  links  of  diabolical 
wickedness,  the  chain  of  demoniacal  succession  !  What 
sort  of  shepherds  were  these  ?  Did  they  come  in  by 
the  door  7  Did  Jesus  Christ  ordain  thera  ?  Will  any 
man  have  the  blasphemous  daring  to  say  that  our 
Blessed  Lord  put  these  men  into  the  ministry  ? — that 
the  Saviour  ordained  men,  against  whom  he  at  the 
same  time  warned  his  churches  ?  Did  they  come  in 
by  Christ  ?  If  not,  then  were  they  thieves  and  rob- 
bers. And  what  kind  of  ministers  could  these  thieves 
and  robbers  ordain?  If  the  doctrine  of  the  apostolical 
succession  were  true,  those  that  are  in  it  are  thieves 
and  robbers  ;  they  are  out  of  the  true  ministry  ;  and  it 
is  only  those,  who  have  their  ordination  from  some 
other  source,  that  are  the  true  shepherds. 


18  FOURTH    LECTURE. 

I  press  this  point.  Either  these  whoremongers,  and 
murderers,  and  liars,  in  the  pretended  priest's  office, 
were  ordained  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  they  were 
not.  If  you  say  that  they  were,  then  what  blasphemy  is 
it  that  you  utter  against  his  holy  character  !  It  is,  in 
effect,  the  blasphemy  of  those  who  said  of  old  time,  that 
he  cast  out  devils  by  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  the 
devils ;  for  if  ever  the  devil  appeared  on  earth  in 
human  shape,  it  was  in  the  persons  of  some  of  those 
who  were  called  universal  bishops,  or  were  bishops 
under  them,  to  carry  out  their  atrocities.  In  holding 
this  daring  assumption  of  the  apostolical  succession,  you 
come  as  near  the  borders  of  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  any  man  would  wish  to  tread,  should 
he  be  trying  the  experiment  how  nearly  he  might 
blaspheme  without  being  convicted  of  it.  The  Saviour 
put  these  men,  these  demons  rather,  into  the  ministry  ? 
Let  the  thought  perish,  rather  than  be  uttered  !  For 
of  whom  did  our  Blessed  Lord  speak,  or  against  whom 
did  he  warn  his  people,  when  he  said,  Beware  of  false 
prophets,  which  come  to  you  in  sheep's  clothing,  come 
to  you  in  the  pretence  of  a  line  and  a  commission  direct 
from  the  Apostles,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening 
wolves  1  Of  whom  did  he  speak,  if  not  of  such  as  these  ? 
And  will  you  dare  to  say  that  such  as  these  were  put 
by  the  Saviour  himself  into  the  ministry  ?  But  if  not, 
they  were  thieves  and  robbers.  And  who  were  those 
false  apostles,  of  whom  Paul  speaks,  deceitful  workers, 
transforming  themselves  into  the  Apostles  of  Christ  ? 
And  no  marvel ;  for  Satan  himself  is  transformed  into 
an  angel  of  light.  Therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if 
Satan's  ministers  be  also  transformed  as  the  ministers 


SOPHISMFIRST.  19 

of  righteousness ;  whose  end  shall  be  according  to 
their  works.  And  will  you  say  that  such  came  in  by  the 
Door,  that  such  were  put  into  the  ministry  by  Christ  1 
And  yet,  such  is  the  assertion  to  which  the  advo- 
cates of  this  apostolical  succession  are  driven  for  the 
support  of  their  pretensions  !  And  we  have  them  con- 
cocting the  monstrous  and  abominable  argument  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  put  Judas  into  the  ministry,  and  all  the 
successors  of  Judas  in  sheep's  clothing,  in  order  to  af- 
ford the  prelatical  successionists  a  standing  proof  that 
the  wickedness  of  hell  itself  cannot  vitiate  the  apos- 
tolical succession,  but  that  it  may  come  down  un- 
broken, untainted,  through  the  ministers  and  emissaries 
of  Satan,  no  matter  though  the  Lord  forewarned  his 
churches  against  such,  and  forbade  them  to  receive 
them,  and  no  matter  though  the  Apostles  Paul  and  Pe- 
ter anathematize  them,  and  declare  them  accursed. 
Yet  it  is  argued  that  their  very  existence  in  the  prela- 
tical ministry,  in  the  apostolical  succession,  was  per- 
mitted by  the  Saviour,  in  order  to  show  to  the  world 
that  Satan  himself  could  not  vitiate  the  viims  of  that 
succession,  and  that  the  gates  of  hell,  though  set  wide 
open  into  the  ministry,  should  not  prevail,  neither  to 
impair  that  succession,  nor  to  injure  the  church  under 
it !  And  to  crown  this  argument,  they  even  go  back 
to  those  profane  wretches,  the  sons  of  Eli,  and  attempt 
to  prove  that  because  their  shocking  wickedness  did 
not  cause  God  to  remove  the  succession  of  the  Jewish 
priesthood  into  another  line,  therefore  the  succession  of 
adulterers  and  whoremongers  in  the  house  of  God  can 
never  vitiate  or  change  the  line  of  apostolical  succes- 
sion under  the  Christian  dispensation  ! 


23  FOURTHLECTURE. 

And  all  this  in  the  face  of  that  tremendous  curse 
pronounced  upon  the  line  of  Eli,  on  account  of  this  very 
wickedness  in  his  sons,  and  its  allowance  by  their  fa- 
ther. Read  the  curse,  the  whole  of  it,  in  the  second 
chapter  of  the  first  book  ot"  Samuel,  and  then  say  if  it 
is  not  daring  profaneness  almost  unparalleled,  to  resort 
to  the  wickedness  of  Hophni  and  Phinehas,  for  a  proof 
that  still  greater  immorality  in  the  Christian  ministry 
cannot  injure  the  true  prelatical  succession,  cannot 
prove  that  the  men  guilty  of  it  were  not  appointed  of 
Christ !  God  said  expressly  that  he  would  change  the 
line  of  succession,  that  this  very  wickedness  of  these 
priests  caused  him  to  do  it.  "  Wherefore  the  Lord  God 
of  Israel  saith,  I  said  indeed  that  thy  house  and  the 
house  of  thy  father  should  walk  before  me  for  ever :  but 
now  the  Lord  saith.  Be  it  far  from  me  ;  for  them  that 
honor  me  I  will  honor,  and  they  that  despise  me  shall 
be  lightly  esteemed.  And  I  will  raise  me  up  a  fahh- 
ful  priest,  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  one  that 
is  left  in  their  house  shall  come  and  crouch  to  him  for 
a  piece  of  silver  and  a  morsel  of  bread,  and  shall  say, 
Put  me,  I  pray  thee,  into  one  of  the  priest's  offices, 
that  I  may  eat  a  piece  of  bread !"  Let  them  go  to 
Hophni  and  Phinehas  that  choose,  for  arguments  to  sup- 
port the  apostolical  succession,  and  to  Judas"  also ;  the 
resort  does  but  strikingly  demonstrate  the  hopeless  ini- 
quity of  their  assumptions  ! 

SACRIFICING    PRIESTS    ARE    NOT    OF    CHRISt's    MINISTRY. 

The  cases  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  are  much  more  in 
point  than  those  of  Hophni  and  Phinehas,  for  they  were 
struck  dead,  though  in  the  line  of  the  succession,  for 


SOPHISMFIRST.  21 

offerinof  stranfice  fire,  which  the  Lord  had  not  command- 
ed.  Determine  the  character  of  a  great  portion  of  the 
priests  in  the  apostolical  succession  by  this  incident,  and 
you  would  oondetim  them  at  once,  as  no  minissters  of 
Christ.  Their  offering  has  been  strange  fire,  which  the 
Lord  hath  not  commanded,  and  not  only  strange  fire 
but  blasphemy.  For,  what  else  is  the  pretended  offer- 
ing up  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  a  daily  sncri- 
fice  in  the  Mass,  but  the  most  shocking  blasphemy  ? 
Or,  if  it  were  not  blasphemy,  still  a  strange  presump- 
tuous fire,  which  God  not  only  hath  not  commanded, 
but  hath  forbidden,  in  that  he  hath  said,"  But  now 
once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared,  to  put 
away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  And  as  it  is  ap- 
pointed unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judg- 
ment, so  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of 
many."  And  again,  *'  We  are  sanctified  through  the 
offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once.  And  every 
priest  (under  the  old  dispensation)  standeth  daily  min- 
istering and  offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices, 
which  can  never  take  away  sins.  But  this  man,  after 
he  had  offered  one  sacrif[CE  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  God,  from  henceforth  expecting  till 
his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool.  For  by  one  offer- 
ing he  hath  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified." 
Now  we  say  that  it  is  evident  that  the  profane  as- 
sumption of  the  office  and  business  of  sacrificing  priests 
on  the  part  of  the  Christian  ministry,  is  sufficient  to  put 
them  out  of  that  ministry,  as  not  belonging  to  it;  es- 
pecially when  there  is  added  the  blasphemous  pretence 
of  offering  up  in  sacrifice  to  God,  the  Son  of  God  him- 
self, body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity,  daily.     They 


22  FOURTH    LECTURE. 

who  make  such  pretences,  are  like  Nadab  and  Abihu ; 
but  they  are  not  of  the  Christian  ministry;  they  are  not 
ministers  of  Christ.  Yet  they  are  in  the  hne  of  the 
boasted  apostoUcal  succession  ;  they  occupied,  for  more 
than  a  thousand  years,  all  the  parallels  of  that  line ;  if 
the  cord  has  many  strands,  as  has  been  amusingly  ar- 
gued, they  are  strands  of  sacrificing  priests,  and  not 
preachers  of  the  gospel,  twisted  together.  And  what 
sort  of  ministers  could  these  men  ordain  ?  And  what 
sort  of  a  succession  is  that  which  comes  down  from 
such  men  ?  A  succession  of  strange  fire,  a  succession 
of  death,  a  succession  from  men  who  were  not  them- 
selves ministers  of  Christ,  and  could  not  ordain  minis- 
ers.  If,  therefore,  you  demonstrate  yourselves  to  be  of 
the  apostolical  succession,  and  thereon  found  your 
claim  as  ministers  of  Christ,  it  is  a  demonstration  that 
you  are  profane  intruders  into  that  ministry,  put  there 
by  men  whose  touch  was  sacrilege  and  death  ! 

GENEALOGICAL    LOGIC    OF    THE    SUCCESSION. 

When  the  demand  is  made  on  the  advocates  of  the 
apostolical  succession  that  they  show  step  by  step  the 
proofs  that  they  possess  it,  that  it  has  come  down  to 
them  alone  unbroken,  unvitiated,  the  most  general  re- 
ply is  in  the  most  general  terms,  that  it  is  obviously 
impracticable,  and  not  to  be  demanded,  that  they  should 
show  their  genealogy  for  so  many  centuries,  but  that  it 
is  perfectly  clear  that  they  derive  their  commission  from 
men  w^ho  were  themselves  ordained,  who  derived  it  in 
their  turn  from  men  who  were  also  ordained,  and  so  on 
to  a  point  "  whereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not 
to  the  contrary  !" 


SOPHISMFIKST.  23 

And  this  is  the  cat. 
That  killed  the  rat, 
That  eat  the  malt. 
That  lay  in  the  house 
That  Jack  built. 

Besides  our  nursery  rhymes,  we  are  reminded  by  this 
powerful  process  of  logic,  of  the  ratiocination  of  the 
Indians  in  regard  to  the  Cosmogony,  that  the  world 
rests  on  the  back  of  an  elephant,  the  elephant  stands 
on  a  great  rhinoceros,  the  rhinoceros  on  a  huge  tor- 
toise, and  after  the  tortoise  is  chaotic  mud.  This 
chaos  is  what  the  prelatical  successionists  have  to  cast 
the  anchor  of  their  argument  in,  after  all,  for  they  go 
back  to  a  point  beyond  which  the  memory  of  man  run- 
neth not  to  the  contrary,  for  the  very  good  reason  that 
the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  thither  at  all.  Beyond 
the  memory  of  man  !  Then  assuredly  you  have  got 
beyond  certain  knowledge.  And  now,  how  will  you 
trace  the  precious  line  of  the  true  succession  ?  Here 
are  two,  three,  four  or  five  popes,  and  as  many  lines  of 
prelatical  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing.  "Which  of  them 
will  you  choose  ?  Here  are  almost  forty  tracks  save 
one.  Which  is  the  track  of  the  Apostles  ?  Having 
come  to  this  gulf,  your  scent  is  at  fault.  What  will 
you  do  ?  A  river  of  chaos  runs  through  it,  and  your 
apostolical  succession  has  escaped  you. 

The  keen  instinct  even  of  prelatical  ambition  is  at 
fault.  I  am  reminded  of  the  anecdote  of  the  dog  in 
search  of  his  master,  who,  coming  to  a  point  where 
three  roads  met,  smelt  at  the  first,  smelt  at  the  second, 
and  then  darted  off  upon  the  third,  concluding  that,  as 
his  master  was  not  to  be  traced  in  either  of  the  two 


24  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

first,  he  had  gone  the  other  of  course.  Now  in  search- 
ing for  your  true  succession,  you  are  very  much  in  need 
of  a  sagacious  ecclesiastical  pointer.  You  don't  know 
which  way  the  sacerdotal,  sacramental,  ordlnational 
virtue  was  shot  through  the  dark  ages.  If,  as  the  doc- 
trine of  prelacy  atfirms,  it  comes  through  the  ])alm  of 
the  hand,  no  matter  what  the  heart  or  the  head  n:ay 
be,  a  keen-scented  dog  could  soon  find  it  out.  Pity,  I 
say,  that  you  had  not  such  an  ecclesiastical  pointer  to 
course  the  genuine  hare  of  apostolical  authority  !  The 
absurdity  is  such  as  makes  the  supporters  of  it  the 
laughino;-stock  of  Christendom.  One  of  their  own 
bishops  in  England  has  well  said  that  to  spread  abroad 
this  notion  of  the  apostolical  succession,  and  to  insist  on 
its  necessity,  is  to  make  themselves  the  derision  of  the 
world  ;  and  truly,  nothing  but  a  bigotry  and  blindness 
next  to  insanity,  could  prevent  men  of  common  sense 
from  at  once  acknowledging  it. 

NECESSITY  OF  AN  AUTHENTIC,  TROVEN  GENEALOGY. 

We  call  for  the  genealogy  of  these  men,  who  thus 
gratuitously  assume  themselves  to  be  the  successors, 
and  the  only  successors,  of  the  Apostles.  Their  very 
assumption  makes  the  demonstration  of  their  genealogy 
essential,  because  the  assumption  is  imposed  as  neces- 
sary to  salvation.  If  their  genealogy  be  of  divine 
right,  and  a  faith  in  it  essential  to  salvation,  they  must 
show  it.  No  man  can  believe  in  it  unless  he  either 
sees  it  for  himself,  or  has  the  VV^ord  of  God  ^or  it ;  and 
as  our  apostolical  successionists  have  not  yet  shovv^n  us 
their  own  names  set  down  in  any  divinely  inspired 


SOPHISM     FIRST.  25 

catalogue,  and  traced  up  to  the  Apostles  (however 
they  may  yet  bring  forward  such  a  pretence),  they 
must  take  the  other  alternative,  and  give  us  a  ground 
of  behef  in  their  successionship,  by  showing  us  plainly 
their  own  genealogy  up  to  the  source  from  which  they 
pretend  to  derive  it.  If  the  matter  in  dispute  were  the 
hereditary  right  to  any  crown  in  Christendom,  a  man 
would  be  deemed  a  candidate  for  Bedlam,  who  should 
dare  to  come  forward  and  demand,  on  pain  of  high 
treason,  the  belief  of  all  men  in  him  as  the  hereditary 
successor,  without  showing,  or  pretending  to  show,  one 
particle  of  evidence  that  he  is  of  the  blood-royal.  He 
may  trace  back  a  lineage  as  far  as  he  pleases,  and  call 
it  royal,  but  if  he  does  not  trace  it  to  the  royal  stock 
he  is  an  impudent  impostor.  And  just  so  with  those 
who  step  forward  and  make  the  insane  demand  that 
we,  on  peril  of  our  salvation,  regard  and  receive  them 
as  the  only  ministers  of  Christ,  on  the  ground  of  their 
having  come  in  the  line  of  what  they  call  the  apos- 
tolical succession.  They  are  impudent  impostors,  if 
they  do  not  show  and  prove  to  us  demonstrably,  step 
by  step,  the  line  of  their  genealogy.  A  single  break 
scatters  their  pretended  proof  to  the  winds.  An  un- 
broken line  must  be  demonstrated,  or  it  is  no  line  at 
all.  It  is  no  more  proof  to  us  that  they  are  of  the 
apostolical  line,  to  show  that  ministers  have  been 
ordained  generation  after  generation,  from  time  imme- 
morial, than  the  fact  that  Confucius  lived  before  the 
birth  of  Christ  proves  Mohammed  to  have  descended 
down  from  Judas. 

Two  things  are  necessary,  neither  of  which  is  possi- 
ble, for  the  advocates  and  appropriators  of  this  insane 


26  FOURTHLECTUHe. 

assumption.  They  must  first  prove  that  there  is  such 
a  thing  as  the  apostolical  succession  ;  which  they  can- 
not do  but  by  tracing,  step  by  step,  with  unquestioned 
demonstration,  a  lineage  of  ordination  direct  down 
through  the  whole  waste  and  chaos  of  time  and  iniquity, 
for  eighteen  hundred  years,  from  some  one  particular 
apostle.  It  is  manifest,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
that  generalities  and  suppositions  are  here  mere  ab- 
surdities. There  must  be  demonstration,  step  by  step, 
or  there  is  no  proof  at  all.  Probabilities,  in  this  case, 
are  of  no  avail  whatever ;  they  are,  as  in  tracing  a  line 
of  ancestry,  mere  proofs  of  bastardy.  There  is  either 
an  apostolical  succession,  or  there  is  not ;  it  can  be 
proved  that  there  is,  only  by  pointing  out  and  demon- 
strating the  line ;  and  the  moment  you  have  done  this 
you  have  put  an  end  to  all  question  who  is  of  the  line, 
because  if  there  be  an  apostolical  succession,  the  par- 
ticular line,  in  full  demonstration,  is  the  only  proof 
of  it. 

In  the  second  place,  they  must  prove  that  they  them- 
selves are  of  this  line,  w^hich  again  they  cannot  do  but 
by  tracing,  step  by  step,  with  unquestioned  demon- 
stration, a  lineage  of  ordination  backwards,  direct, 
beyond  the  same  whole  waste  and  chaos  of  time,  revo- 
lution, and  iniquity,  for  eighteen  hundred -years,  up  to 
some  one  particular  apostle.  We  have  not  yet  found 
a  Bedlamite  who  can  do  this  ;  I  do  not  know  that  this 
freak  of  insanity  has  been  as  yet  developed  in  any  one 
of  the  supporters  of  this  fanaticism  of  the  succession ; 
how  soon  it  may  be,  we  cannot  tell. 


SOPHISM     FIRST.  27 

PROFANENESS  OF  THE    MODE    OF    ARGUMENT   FOR    THE    SUC- 
CESSION. 

One  tiling  is  clear ;  they  have  dared  profanely  to 
degrade  the  Word  of  God,  by  putting  the  evidence  for 
the  truth  and  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures  on  a  level 
^vith  the  existing  evidence  of  their  apostolical  succes- 
sion, which  is  no  evidence  at  all.  This  is  a  profane- 
ness  which  has  been  shown  in  the  most  masterly 
manner  in  one  of  the  letters  of  Dr.  Potts,  to  lead  ine- 
vitably to  sheer  infidelity,  throwing  away  the  whole 
internal  evidence  of  Scr-ipture,  and  rendering  the  exter- 
nal evidence  worthless.  Of  the  infidel  tendency  of 
this  assumption  I  shall,  therefore,  say  nothing  ;  it  has 
been  sufficiently  demonstrated.  But  I  will  take  another 
view.  I  will  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  what 
the  assumption  of  the  prelatist  supposes,  that  there  is 
no  internal  evidence  of  Christianity  in  the  Scriptures, 
any  more  than  there  is  of  apostolical  succession  in  the 
air.  Now,  then,  the  assumption  of  the  successionists 
is  this,  that  there  is  as  much  and  as  strong  evidence 
that  they  are  of  the  only  true  line,  as  there  is  external 
evidence  of  the  truth  and  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
which,  after  all,  they  say  is  only  probability.  But 
there  is  this  infinite  difference.  The  external  evidence 
of  the  Scriptures  is  not  essential  to  salvation ;  whereas 
the  evidence  of  the  apostolical  succession  is  made  by 
its  advocates  to  be  thus  essential.  Now,  had  the  ex- 
ternal evidence  of  the  Scriptures  been  a  thing  essential 
to  salvation,  it  would  have  been  made  as  clear  as  the 
Scriptures  themselves ;  it  would  not  have  been  left 
to  be  ascertained  by  probabilities.     But  we  have  the 


28  FOURTHLECTURE. 

Word  of  God  itself  in  our  own  possession,  and  it  would 
still  be  the  Word  of  God  if  all  its  external  evidence 
were  annihilated  ;  so  that  for  faith,  for  salvation,  it  is 
of  no  moment  whatever  whether  a  man  have  so  much 
as  heard  whether  there  be  Lny  external  evidence. 
Much  more  it  is  of  no  moment  whatever,  whether  a  man 
ever  heard  of  this  bugbear  of  the  apostolical  succession. 
But  if  that  succession  were  essential  to  salvation,  as  its 
advocates  arrogantly  and  blasphemously  assert,  then 
they  would  be  bound  to  show,  with  as  much  certainty 
as  if  it  were  written  from  heaven,  their  own  commis- 
sion, and  they  would  be  bound  to  show  every  step  by 
w^hich  it  is  demonstrated  ;  and  if  one  single  step  fails, 
so  that  they  have  to  rely  on  supposition,  which  they 
may,  perhaps,  call  faith,  their  claim  fails.  Such  a 
thing,  a  matter  not  susceptible  of  proof,  cannot  be  ne- 
cessary to  salvation,  cannot  be  of  any  essential  im- 
portance. 

Besides,  in  what  is  this  faith  to  be  exercised  ?  Not 
in  any  Word  of  God  surely  ;  for  the  successionists  will 
not  say  that  they,  Richard  Roe  and  John  Doe,  have 
been  named  and  commissioned  in  God's  Word  ;  and  the 
faith  in  the  promise  of  Christ  to  be  with  his  ministers 
is  of  no  use  for  them,  unless  they  first  prove  themselves 
to  be  among  his  ministers,  which  on  their  own  theory 
they  cannot  do,  except  they  first  prove  themselves  to 
be  of  the  apostolical  succession,  which  again  they 
cannot  do  except  by  faith  in  the  Saviour's  promise  to 
be  with  his  ministers,  which  again  does  them  no  good, 
unless  they  can  prove  that  they  are  among  his  ministers, 
which  again  they  confess  themselves  unable  to  prove, 
but  by  showing  that  they  are  of  the  succession,  which 


SOPHISM     FIRST.  29 

again  they  cannot  show  but  by  faith  in  the  Saviour's 
promises ;  and  so  on  ad  injinitum.  Here  is  a  succes- 
sion for  you  indeed,  a  succession  in  a  circle.  If  ever 
there  was  a  specimen  of  gross  and  ridiculous  reasoning 
in  a  circle  it  is  this.  The  apostolical  succession  has 
never  been  broken,  because  Christ  promised  to  be  with 
his  ministers ;  we  are  of  the  apostolical  succession, 
because  that  succession  has  never  been  broken  ;  and 
that  succession  has  never  been  broken  because  we  are 
ministers  of  Christ,  who  do  now  exist;  and  we  are 
ministers  of  Christ  because  we  are  of  the  apostolical 
succession ;  and  we  are  of  the  apostolical  succession 
because  it  has  never  been  broken  ! 

IMMORAL    TENDENCY  OF  THE  ARGUMENTS  FOR    THE  APOSTO- 
LICAL   SUCCESSION. 

With  great  profaneness,  with  an  immorality  of 
reasoning  which  is  scarcely  outdone  in  Dens'  Theology 
itself,  the  prelatical  successionists  argue  that  because 
wickedness  in  the  Jewish  Priesthood  did  not  break  up 
the  line  of  succession  there,  neither  can  such  wicked- 
ness break  up  the  line  of  the  assumed  apostolical  suc- 
cession under  the  Christian  dispensation.  They  argue 
from  adulterous  sons  of  Eli  to  the  admission  of  adul- 
terers in  the  Christian  Ministry !  They  argue  from  the 
case  cf  Balaam,  who,  they  say,  notwithstanding  his 
wickedness,  was  a  prophet,  to  the  admission  of  men 
equally  wicked,  as  ministers  of  Christ !  And  this  in 
the  face  of  such  a  description  of  Balaam,  and  such  a 
warning  of  the  churches  against  those  who  should  be 
like  him,  in  Peter  and  in  Jude;  *' cursed  children, 
3 


30  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

which  have  forsaken  the  right  way,  and  are  gone 
astray,  following  the  way  of  Balaam."  But  indeed, 
if  because  Balaam  was  used  of  God  as  a  prophet,  there- 
fore Balaams  may  be  admitted  in  the  line  of  the  apos- 
tolical succession,  we  might  just  as  well  argue  that 
because  Balaam's  ass  was  used  of  God  as  a  prophet, 
therefore  the  existence  of  bona-fide  asses  may  be 
admitted  in  the  line  of  the  apostolical  succession,  and 
yet  not  vitiate  it  at  all.  Indeed  an  actual  braying  ass 
ardained  in  the  ministry  would  not  disgrace  its  sacred- 
ness  one  half  so  much  as  the  ordination  and  existence 
of  such  murderers  and  adulterers,  as  have  sometimes, 
from  generation  to  generation,  constituted  links  in  the 
boasted  apostolical  succession.  Just  so  it  is  gravely 
argued  that  because  Caiaphas  who  cnrcified  Christ,  was 
still  a  legitimate  high-priest,  therefore  the  ministers  of 
Christ  under  the  Christian  dispensation  may  also  crucify 
him  afresh  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame  by  their  villa- 
nies,  and  yet  not  break  or  vitiate  the  line  of  the  apos- 
tolical succession  in  the  least.  We  can  apply  to  such 
reasonings  as  these  nothing  but  the  image  which  Jude 
uses  of  such  exemplars  as  are  resorted  to,  "  raging 
waves  of  the  sea,  foaming  out  their  own  shame." 

NO  RELATION   BETWEEN   THE  JEWISH  PRIESTHOOD  AND  THE 
PRETENDED    APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION. 

But  even  this  very  vile  argument  used  by  the  advo- 
cates for  prelacy  proceeds  on  an  assumption  of  the 
whole  matter  in  question.  It  is  assumed  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  the  apostolical  succession,  and  then  it 
is  argued^  that  because  the  most  diabolical  wickedness 


SOPHISM     FIRST.  31 

did  not  break  the  succession  in  the  Jewish  Priesthood, 
therefore  it  cannot  break  this  assumed  succession  in 
the  Christian  ministry.  Here  again  the  argument 
(which,  however,  has  not  begun  to  be  an  argument), 
involves  and  proceeds  upon  the  ground  of  a  second 
assumption,  namely,  that  the  apostolical  succession  is 
of  the  same  nature  with  that  of  the  Jewish  Priesthood  ; 
if  not,  how  can  any  argument  be  admitted  from  one 
to  the  other  ?  But  if  you  would  conform  the  Chris- 
tian Ministry  to  the  Jewish  Priesthood  in  its  corruptions, 
with  the  hne  of  succession  unbroken  notwithstanding, 
you  must  conform  it  in  other  points.  Your  own  as- 
sumption compels  you  to  run  the  parallel,  and  in  what 
points  soever  you  are  deficient,  and  do  not  come  up  to 
the  requisites  for  an  unbroken  line  in  the  Priesthood, 
your  apostolical  succession  fails  and  becomes  worth- 
less. Run  the  parallel  then,  as  your  argument  com- 
pels you  to  do,  and  you  speedily  find  that  in  the  line 
of  the  Jewish  Priesthood,  for  a  man  to  be  acknowledged 
as  a  Priest,  and  to  be  permitted  to  perform  the  func- 
tions of  a  Priest,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  he 
should  demonstrate  his  genealogy.  He  must  demon- 
strate his  claim  to  belong  to  the  succession,  by  show- 
ing an  authenticated,  proven  genealogy,  step  by  step, 
otherwise  he  was  turned  out.  All  claim  to  a  succes- 
sion, without  such  demonstration,  is  a  piece  of  vulgar 
impudence,  imposture  and  absurdity.  You  assume, 
forsooth,  in  the  first  place,  the  figment  of  an  apostoli- 
cal succession,  and  next  you  assume  yourselves  to  be 
in  the  line  of  that  succession,  but  when  the  demonstra- 
tion of  your  claim  is  demanded,  when  your  genealogy 
is  required  to  prove  your  descent.  Oh,  you  answer,  we 


32  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

have  no  proof  of  that,  we  cannot  be  expected  to  give 
proof  of  that;  the  external  evidence  of  the  Scriptures 
themselves  is  not  a  mathematical  demonstration,  much 
less  can  you  require  us  to  demonstrate  our  genealogy. 
Why,  we  cannot  trace  it  half  way  through  the  dark 
ages.  We  must  have  faith  in  Christ's  promise  that 
he  would  be  with  the  ministry  always  to  the  end  of  the 
world. 

Now  we  say,  your  proposition  of  the  apostolical 
succession,  without  a  demonstration  of  your  genealogy, 
is  an  audacious,  arrogant  absurdity.  In  the  case 
of  the  Jewish  Priesthood  we  find  that  even  where 
there  was  a  probability,  nay,  a  certainty,  that  individ- 
uals were  of  the  line  of  the  succession,  yet,  if  they  could 
not  prove  their  genealogy,  they  were  cast  out.  Read 
it  in  the  book  of  Ezra,  ii.  59 — Qi2.  "  They  sought 
their  register  among  those  that  were  reckoned  by  genea- 
logy, but  they  were  not  found  ;  therefore  were  they, 
as  polluted,  put  from  the  Priesthood."  Now  this,  ac- 
cording to  the  confession  of  the  Prelatists  themselves, 
is  the  dilemma  to  which  they  of  the  true  succession  are 
reduced  ;  they  cannot  even  show  their  fathers'  house, 
and  their  pedigree  whether  they  were  of  Israel,  much 
less  the  register  of  their  genealogy.  Now  what  should 
you  think  of  a  man  who  should  come  forward  and  lay 
claim  to  an  estate,  which  has  been  always  held  in  com- 
mon for  the  benefit  of  the  city  of  New^  York,  as  the 
property  of  the  city,  and  upon  being  required  to  show 
his  proofs,  to  produce  the  evidences  of  his  heirship  down 
from  the  original  grant,  he  shall  say,  I  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  demonstrate  that;  the  nature  of  the  case  is 
such  as  not  to  be  susceptible  of  documentary  or  mathe- 


SOPHISMFIRST.  33 

matical  proof.  I  can  tell  you  that  my  father  and  my 
grandfather  always  said  that  that  estate  belonged  to 
them,  and  I  can  show  you  that  I  am  their  lineal  suc- 
cessor, but  you  cannot  expect  me  to  produce  the  docu- 
ments, after  so  long  lapse  of  time  and  so  many  revolu- 
tions. Even  of  the  external  evidence  of  the  Scriptures 
you  do  not  require  mathematical  proof,  you  have  to 
content  yourself  with  probabilities,  and  since  there  is 
certainly  a  succession  of  ownership  in  this  property, 
and  my  father  and  grandfather  always  maintained  that 
it  belonged  to  them,  it  is  necessary  to  exercise  faith ; 
for  the  original  terms  of  the  grant  declared  that  the 
property  should  always  be  in  existence,  and  as  it  must 
always  exist  as  somebody's  property,  and  as  I  exist  as 
a  claimant,  it  is  a  degree  of  demonstration  as  strong  as 
that  which  you  have  for  the  authenticity  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  original  terms  of  the  grant  meant  me, 
and  contemplated  my  existence  as  the  holder  of  the 
property.  It  must  have  been  so,  for  my  father  and 
grandfather  declared  it !  This  is  the  amount  of  the 
assumptions  of  prelacy.  It  is  not  wonderful  that  Arch- 
bishop Wake  himself  declared  the  forthputters  of  such 
assumptions  to  be  insane.  They  are  indeed  more  fit 
for  a  Romish  Bedlam,  than  for  the  limits  of  sane 
Christendom. 


THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY    NOT    AN    APOSTOLICAL    SnCCES- 
SION,  BUT  THE  POWDER  OF  AN  ENDLESS  LIFE  IN  CHRIST. 

But  now  in  regard  to  this  singular  reference  by  the 
advocates  of  the  apostolical  succession  to  the  line  of 
the  Jewish  Priesthood  in  support  of  their  allegation 


34  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

that  the  most  devilish  wickedness  cannot  vitiate  their 
genealogy  as  Christian  Priests,  we  have  another  an- 
swer to  make,  which  demonstrates  the  presumptuous 
and  absurd  nature  of  the  importance  attached  to  such 
a  succession.  It  is  this,  namely,  that  the  line  of  the 
Jewish  succession  itself  was  set  aside  and  departed 
from  (and  that,  according  to  the  threatening  of  God 
in  the  ears  of  Eli,  because  of  the  wickedness  of  the 
priests  in  the  Levitical  line),  by  the  coming  of  our 
Lord,  in  an  unchangeable  priesthood,  not  in,  but  out  of 
that  line.  This  argument  is  powerfully  set  forth  by 
Paul  in  verses  11 — 16  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  also  in  verses  6 — 9  of 
the  eighth  chapter  of  the  same.  "  If  therefore  perfec- 
tion w^ere  by  the  Levitical  priesthood  (for  under  it  the 
people  received  the  law),  what  further  need  was  there 
that  another  priest  should  rise  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chisedec,  and  not  be  called  after  the  order  of  Aaron  1 
For  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made  of 
necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law.  For  he  of  whom 
these  things  are  spoken  pertaineth  to  another  tribe,  of 
which  no  man  gave  attendance  at  the  altar.  For  it  is 
evident  that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah ;  of  which 
tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  priesthood.  And 
it  is  yet  far  more  evident,  for  that  after  the  similitude 
of  Melchisedec  there  ariseth  another  priest,  w^ho  is 
made  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but 
after  the  power  of  an  endless  life." 

So  also  the  Christian  ministry,  springing  from  Christ, 
the  Great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  the  sheep,  are 
"made  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment, 
but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life ;"  not  after  the 


S-0  P  H  I  S  M     F  I  R  S  T  .  3d 

rule  of  a  pretended,  apostolical  succession,  but  after 
the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  a  new  spiritual  creation.  The  true  succes- 
sion of  the  Christian  ministry  is  the  power  of  an  end- 
less life,  not  because  of  the  figment  of  a  line  from  the 
Apostles,  skin-deep  in  the  palm  of  the  hand,  but  be- 
cause it  is  the  life  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Body  of 
Christ,  the  Church,  because  it  is  a  perpetual  new  crea- 
tion and  anointing  from  on  high  by  that  grace  which 
dwelleth  with  the  Church  and  shall  be  in  the  Church 
for  ever.  It  is  the  power  of  an  endless  life,  because  it 
is  no  lineal  succession  of  men,  but  in  every  case  a  new 
and  fresh  spiritual  consecration  by  the  Saviour.  It  is 
the  power  of  an  endless  life,  in  opposition  to  the  cere- 
mony of  an  apostolical  succession,  because  it  is  the 
ministration  of  the  Spirit  in  opposition  to  the  religion 
of  tradition  and  of  form.  It  is  the  religion  of  regenera- 
tion by  the  Spirit  and  of  ministerial  unction  and  con- 
secration by  the  Spirit,  instead  of  the  religion  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  and  sacramental  consecration  by 
the  palm  of  the  prelatical  hand.  The  true  ministry  is 
the  power  of  an  endless  life  in  opposition  to  the  for- 
malism of  a  sacramental  death ;  a  death,  in  which  a 
thousand  Judases  might  be  in  the  ministry,  crucifying 
the  Lord  afresh  and  putting  him  to  an  open  shame ;  and 
yet,  inasmuch  as  it  comes  in  the  line  of  the  apostolical 
succession,  it  is  to  be  invested  with  the  form  of  life,  and  as 
sacredly  enshrined,  admired,  and  venerated,  as  if  it  were 
the  manna  of  the  soul,  or  the  shew-bread  from  heaven  ! 
There  is  a  noble  passage  in  Milton,  in  which  this 
freedom  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  its  superiority  to 
the  law  of  a  carnal   commandment,  are  so  admirably 


36  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

set  forth,  that  I  shall  quote  it.  "  It  cannot  be  unknown 
by  what  expre«;sions  the  holy  Apostle  St.  Paul  spares 
not  to  explain  to  us  the  nature  and  condition  of  the 
law,  calling  those  ordinances,  which  w^ere  the  chief 
and  essential  offices  of  the  priests,  the  elements  and 
rudiments  of  the  world,  both  weak  and  beggarly.  Now 
to  breed  and  bring  up  the  children  of  the  promise,  the 
heirs  of  liberty  and  grace,  under  such  a  kind  of  govern- 
ment as  is  professed  to  be  but  an  imitation  of  that  min- 
istry, which  engendereth  to  bondage  the  sons  of  Agar, 
how  can  this  be  but  a  foul  injury  and  derogation,  if 
not  a  cancelling  of  that  birth-right  and  immunity,  which 
Christ  hath  purchased  for  us  by  his  blood  ?  For  the 
ministration  of  the  law,  consisting  of  carnal  things^ 
drew  to  it  such  a  ministry,  as  consisted  of  carnal  re- 
spects, dignity,  precedence,  and  the  like.  And  such  a 
ministry  established  in  the  gospel,  as  is  founded  upon 
the  points  and  terms  of  superiority,  and  nests  itself  in 
worldly  honors,  will  draw  to  it,  and  we  see  it  doth,  such 
a  religion  as  runs  back  again  to  the  old  pomp  and  glory 
of  the  flesh  ;  for  doubtless  there  is  a  certain  attraction 
and  magnetic  force  betwixt  the  religion  and  the  minis- 
terial form  thereof.  If  the  religion  be  pure,  spiritual, 
simple,  and  lowly,  as  the  gospel  most  tiuly  is,  such  must 
the  face  of  the  ministry  be.  And  in  like  ma-nner,  if  the 
form  of  the  ministry  be  grounded  in  the  worldly  de- 
grees of  authority,  honor,  temporal  jurisdiction,  we  see 
with  our  eyes,  it  will  turn  the  inward  power  and  purity  of 
the  gospel  into  the  outward  carnality  of  the  law;  eva- 
porating and  exhaling  the  internal  worship  into  empty 
conformities  and  gay  shows.  And  what  remains  in  that 
case  but  that  we  should  run  into  as  dangerous  and  deadly 


SOPHISM     SECOND.  37 

apostasy  as  our  lamentable  neighbors  the  papists,  who 
by  this  very  snare  and  pitfall  of  imitating  the  ceremo- 
nial law,  fell  into  that  irrecoverable  superstition  as 
must  needs  make  void  the  covenant  of  salvation  to 
them  that  persist  in  this  blindness." 

SECOND  SOPHISM  IN  THE  USE  OF  THE  WORD  BISHOP. 

(II.)  The  second  point  of  sophistry  to  be  noted,  con- 
cerns the  use  of  the  word  bishop.  Every  philosopher 
knows,  and  in  reasoning  on  subjects  overlaid  with  tradi- 
tion, or  encumbered  with  immemorial  prejudices,  which 
have  been  sanctified  by  power,hashad  to  lament  the  mis- 
guiding influence  of  words,  perverted  from  their  origi- 
nal meaning,  and  yet  made  to  retain  all  the  power  of 
that  meaning  over  the  common  mind.  The  intellectual 
philosopher  has  to  contend  against  the  difficulties  of 
sensuous  images,  clinging  to  metaphysical  expressions, 
like  sea-weed  to  a  pearl  oyster,  and  misinterpreting  his 
meaning  to  those  with  whom  he  reasons.  When  he 
means  the  pearl,  the  undisciplined  mind  thinks  of  the 
clustering  sea-weed.  And  just  so  with  theology  ;  and 
especially  so  with  the  word  bishop.  Fishing  in  the  trou- 
bled waters  of  prelatical  antiquity,  the  school  of  the  fa- 
mous apostolical  succession  have  drawn  up  the  great 
oyster  of  diocesan  episcopacy  ;  they  have  used  for  this 
purpose  the  drag-net  of  the  Fathers,  and  they  hold  up 
the  whole  fish,  wdth  all  its  appendages,  shell,  sea-weed, 
and  all,  dioixr,aig,  lordship,  authority,  priests,  deacons, 
deans,  hanging  to  it,  and  they  say,  This  is  the  primitive 
bishop  ;  this  the  meaning  of  the  w^ord  bishop.  And  this 
signification  they  have  so  annexed  and  perpetuated,  sq 
3* 


38  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

connected  it  in  every  man's  mind  with  the  fantastical 
image  presented,  fresh  from  the  pool  of  the  corruptions 
of  Christianity,  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  disinte- 
grate the  word  from  such  connexions,  from  such  extra- 
neous appendages  in  the  common  mind.  It  has  been 
covered,  as  Burke  would  say,  wath  "  the  awful  hoar- 
frost of  innumerable  ages  ;"  and  this  frost  ]ies  so  thick 
upon  the  word,  that  you  really  have  to  cut  through  ice 
to  get  at  it.  It  is,  I  say,  much  more  difficult  to  disin- 
tegrate the  word  from  its  ambitious  prelatical  incrusta- 
tions, than  it  is  to  cut  the  hidden  shining  pearl  from  the 
shell  of  the  oyster.  Nevertheless,  neither  the  oyster, 
nor  the  shell,  nor  the  corals,  nor  the  forests  of  sea-weed, 
which  you  show  us  in  your  drag-net,  are  the  primitive 
pearl,  or  the  growth  of  it,  any  more  than  the  tiara  and 
scarlet  mantle  of  the  Pope,  investing  a  certain  woman 
in  the  Apocalypse,  are  the  growth  of  the  threadbare 
cloak  which  Paul  left  at  Troas.  There  is  a  pearl  in- 
deed, there  is  a  primitive  bishop,  a  pure,  shining,  sim- 
ple minister  of  Jesus  Christ ;  but  the  word  bishop,  the 
sniaxoTTog  of  the  scriptures,  no  more  means  a  diocesan 
bishop,  a  prelate  of  the  modern  Episcopal  or  Romish 
church,  than  the  word  pearl  means  oyster;  and  the 
modern  ecclesiastical  dignitary  baptized  with  that  name, 
no  more  means  the  bishop  of  the  New  Testament,  than 
the  word  or  the  thing  oysteVy  means  pearl. 

EVERY    CHURCH    ITS    OWN    EISHOP. 

Now  it  is  of  essential  importance  that  this  sophism 
be  kept  in  mind.  When  the  fashionable  exclusives  ot 
modern  Christianity  deck  themselves  with  the  cross  of 


SOPHIfeM     SECOND.  39 

tlieir  order,  "  No  church  without  a  bishop,"  they  mean 
a  prelate,  an  overseer  of  pastors  the  true  bishops,  and 
not  a  pastor,  a  primitive  bishop  ;  they  mean  the  over- 
seeing, the  overlaying  oyster,  and  not  the  primitive 
pearl.  We  say,  also,  No  church  without  a  bishop  ; 
that  is,  let  every  church  have  its  own  bishop ;  but  we 
mean  not  the  oyster,  the  prelate,  but  the  pearl,  the  sim- 
ple pastor  of  the  flock,  and  minister  of  Jesus  Christ. 
We  hold  to  a  bishop,  as  well  as  the  sect  of  Episcopa- 
lians, but  not  the  lordship  of  a  bishop.  We  hold  to 
such  a  bishop  as  Peter  defines,  when  he  says  to  the 
presbyters,  Feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  over- 
sight thereof,  performing  the  duties  of  your  office  as 
bishops,  not  as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  as 
examples  to  the  flock.  Peter  does  not  say,  taking 
the  oversight  of  the  churches  nor  of  the  pastors,  as  he 
must  have  said  to  a  diocesan  prelate,  but  of  the  flock, 
as  Christ  says  now  to  his  ministers.  We  hold  to  such 
a  bishop  as  Paul  defines,  when  he  calls  the  elders  of 
the  church  and  says,  Feed  the  flock  of  God,  over  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops.  He  does  not 
say,  Go  the  rounds  of  your  diocese,  and  take  care  of 
the  pastors,  and  keep  the  churches  in  order ;  he  does 
not  say,  Oversee  the  churches  and  pastors  of  your  dio- 
cese, as  he  must  have  said  to  modern  Episcopal  bish- 
ops, but,  Feed  that  flock  of  God,  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers.  Nor  does  he  single 
out  one,  and  say  to  him,  Act  the  ^Tnaxonog,  the  bishop, 
as  a  prelatical  overseer,  but.  Feed  the  flock,  ye  over- 
seers, that  flock,  that  church,  in  Ephesus,  over  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  placed  you  as  presbyters,  asbish- 


40  FOURTHLECTURE. 

ops.     In  this  primitive  apostolic  sense  we  hold  the  doc- 
trine, No  church  without  a  bishop. 

Every  man  may  see  the  difference;  let  it  be  borne 
in  mind.  Let  this  word  bishop  be  disintegrated  from 
the  folds,  the  involutions  of  lordship, title,  rank,  author- 
ity, under  which  it  is  buried,  like  the  inveterate  con- 
volvings  of  Gentile  authority,  against  the  imitation  of 
which,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  warned  and  forbade  his 
disciples.  Let  the  Vvord  be  restored  to  its  simple  pri- 
mitive meaning,  and  the  sophism  ceases.  The  truth 
becomes  this,  namely,  Every  church  its  own  bishop,  its 
minister,  its  pastor,  set  over  it  in  the  Lord  for  its  edifi- 
cation, and  accountable  to  no  bishop  of  bishops,  but  to 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  perversion  of  this  word  grew  out  of  human 
ambition.  But  so  plain  and  palpable  was  its  mean- 
ing in  the  New  Testament,  that  for  more  than  two 
hundred  years  it  was  not  possible  to  turn  it  from  its 
application.  Even  when  restricted  to  the  president 
among  the  presbyters,  it  still,  for  more  than  two 
hundred  years,  signified  the  pastor  of  a  single  church  ; 
the  bishop  was  primus  inter  pares,  first  among  the 
body  of  coequal  presbyters ;  though  they  were  not 
bishops,  he  was  still  simply  a  presbyter.  Neither  office 
nor  officer,  like  the  modern  Episcopal  bishop  and  his 
diocese,  had  any  existence.  Not  a  sentence  can  be 
brought  from  the  writings  of  the  first  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years  of  the  Christian  church,  which  gives  even  an 
intimation  of  the  existence  of  modern  diocesan  episco- 
pacy, or  a  hint  at  the  creation  of  prelatical  dignity. 
Nor,  when  the  term  bishop,  little  by  little  enlarged 
and  dignified,  began  its  course  of  actual  perversion,  did 


SOPHISM     SECOND.  41 

it  without  opposition  advance  towards  the  diocesan  ap- 
phcation.  The  Monk  Jerome,  a  man  of  unbounded  au- 
thority, in  some  respects  the  greatest  of  the  Fathers, 
thundered  his  rebukes  against  the  ambition  of  the  bish- 
ops, which  even  then  was  growing  faster  than  their 
name  j  and  Jerome,  writing  about  the  year  375,  called 
back  the  churches  to  the  remembrance  of  the  fact  that 
in  the  New  Testament,  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the 
same,  and  that  bishops  had  grown  to  be  above  presby- 
ters "  more  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  than  by  the 
true  dispensation  of  Christ." 

The  first  genuine  high  churchman  of  antiquity,  as  he 
has  been  called,  was  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  in  whose 
writings,  if  anywhere,  the  elements  of  diocesan  epis- 
copacy ought  to  be  found,  if  any  such  existed  in  his 
day ;  and  yet,  from  his  writings  it  is  clearly  manifest 
that  the  bishop  in  his  time  was  the  pastor  of  a  single 
flock.  Nay,  he  himself,  with  all  his  high-church  no- 
tions, was  the  minister  of  a  single  church,  nothing  more. 
And  the  nearer  you  go  to  the  Apostles'  times,  the  more 
are  the  testimonies  of  the  fathers  entirely  opposed  to 
diocesan  episcopacy ;  in  this  opposition  they  agree,  in 
whatever  else  they  differ.  The  argument  from  them  is 
entirely  against  episcopacy;  not  a  voice  for  two  hundred 
years  can  be  found  to  help  or  sanction  it.  And  when 
you  come  son  ear  to  the  Apostles  as  the  epistle  of  Cle- 
mens Romanus  to  the  Corinthians,  and  that  of  Poly- 
carp  to  the  Philippians,  the  proof  both  from  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  these  epistles  (one  of  them  being  the 
epistle  of  a  holy  fellow-laborer  of  Paul),  is  overwhelm- 
ing. But  after  a  few  centuries,  the  appeal  to  the  Fa- 
thers is  an  appeal  to  lying  witnesses. 


42  FOURTH      LECTURE 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  ASSUMPTION. 

The  term  being  perverted,  and  the  dignity  of  dio« 
cesan  bishop  established,  it  became  thenceforward  the 
interest  of  all  parties  to  sustain,  justify,  and  strengthen 
the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy.  The  apostolical  succes- 
sion was  claimed,  not  for  presbyters,  but  for  bishops 
and  the  pope.  And  here  we  get  into  the  track,  in 
which  the  advocates  of  apostolical  succession  have 
been  running  round  and  round  for  centuries ;  the  first 
man  that  lost  his  way,  and  made  the  complete  circle, 
saying  within  himself,  when  he  came  to  his  own  horse's 
footsteps,  Here  are  the  tracks  of  the  Apostles,  this  is 
doubtless  the  succession  ;  and  the  multitudes  who  have 
gone  the  same  round  ever  since,  uttering  the  same  words, 
and  always  making  the  tracks  of  the  Apostles  broader 
and  more  beaten.  In  our  day  some  men  have  had  the 
hardihood  to  go  even  to  the  New  Testament  for  dio- 
cesan bishops ;  but,  in  the  first  formation  of  the  circle, 
the  forgery  was  too  recent  for  that ;  it  was  too  mani- 
fest for  any  man  to  think  of  contradicting  it,  that  pres- 
byters and  bishops,  in  the  New  Testament,  are  the  same 
thing.  They  did  not,  therefore,  dream  of  setting  the 
bishops  in  their  establishment  jure  divino.  It  was  a 
very  late  period,  even  in  the  corruptions  of  Christian- 
ity, that  gave  birth  to  that  monstrous  pretension  j  if 
they  could  get  bishops  accepted  ^wre  Awmano,  it  was 
enough  for  them,  for  they  knew  that  for  such  an  order 
there  was  no  jus  divinum  in  existence.  But,  in  our 
day,  there  are  those  who  not  only  claim  that  this  order, 
confessedly  foreign  from  the  New  Testament,  not  to  be 


SOPHISMSECOND.  43 

found  in  all  the  sacred  oracles,  an  order  of  human  in- 
vention and  addition  to  the  New  Testament,  should  not 
only  be  received  as  a  true  clerical  order,  but  that  the 
church  of  Christ  should  not  even  be  considered  as  a 
church  without  it !  The  claim  is  now,  that  that  is  the 
only  church  of  Christ  which  possesses  it.  This  is  the 
very  lunacy  of  ecclesiastical  bigotry,  more  fit  for  the 
insane  asylum  than  for  a  community  of  harmonious  and 
sober-minded  Christians. 

It  is  humiliating  to  be  obliged  seriously  to  refute 
such  pretensions  ;  w^e  would  much  rather  treat  them  as 
the  keepers  of  lunatics  do  their  patients,  who  imagine 
themselves  to  be  monarchs,  or  even  incarnations  of 
divinity ;  but  if  we  should  humor  them,  we  should 
soon  find  their  pretensions  to  exclusive  Christianity  to 
be  no  mere  theory,  but  replete  with  the  virus  and  sting 
of  religious  persecution.  Besides,  they  rely  so  entirely 
upon  assumption  and  assertion,  and  are  accustomed  to 
put  forth  their  assertions  in  so  bold  and  reckless  a  man- 
ner, as  if  they  would  have  all  the  force  of  proof,  that 
it  becomes  necessary  to  interpose  a  requisition  for  au- 
thority, and  to  show  clearly,  that  besides  the  uncertain- 
ties and  traditions  of  the  fathers,  they  have  nothing  at 
all  but  assumption  and  assertion  to  rely  upon.  In  fact, 
they  do  themselves  confess  as  much  as  this,  in  the  an- 
swer they  sometimes  make  to  our  requisition  of  clear 
proof  in  the  Scriptures.  We  have  no  such  proof  to 
show,  they  say  ;  we  cannot  bring  it,  not  a  solitary  text. 
And  then,  in  order  to  cover  up  the  weakness  of  their 
case,  they  deliberately  debase  and  underrate  the  proof 
of  scriptural  doctrines  in  the  Bible  itself;  asserting, 
with  infidel  profaneness,  that  it  is  impossible  to  prove 


44  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

even  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity  by  particu- 
lar inrlependent  texts !  In  this  they  act  not  exactly 
the  part  of  counterfeiters,  but  a  much  worse  part,  that 
of  debasing  and  depreciating  the  true  coin,  in  order 
that  their  own  spurious  stuff  may  not  be  seen  and  re- 
jected as  w^orthless.  They  are  willing  to  undermine 
the  buttresses  of  Christianity  itself,  rather  than  that 
their  own  miserable  shanties  should  appear  not  so 
strong,  or  be  seen  to  have  no  scriptural  foundation.  It 
is  difficult  to  speak  too  strongly  of  the  wickedness  of 
this  fanaticism. 


THIS  MODE  OF  REASOxXING    INJURIOUS    TO    THE    GOSPEL,    AND 
DESTRUCTIVE  OF  ALL  FAITH. 

It  is  important  to  show,  a  little  more  at  large,  the 
evil  and  infidel  tendency  of  their  mode  of  procedure. 
They  acknowledge  their  want  of  definite  Scriptural 
proof,  and  also  their  entire  failure  to  prove  an  unbroken 
descent  from  the  Apostles.  They  then  resort  to 
faith,  demanding,  upon  peril  of  our  salvation,  a  faith 
which  they  present  no  proof  for  us  to  build  upon.  But 
in  what  is  faith  to  be  exercised  ?  In  an  acknowledged 
uncertainty !  Now  observe  the  absurdity  of  this ; 
compare  it  wdth  the  definite  grounds  on  which  faith  is 
required  of  us  in  the  gospel. 

The  faith  which,  in  divine  things,  we  are  called  upon 
to  exercise,  in  peril  of  our  salvation,  is  a  faith  built 
upon  certainty,  the  highest  certainty  of  which  the  hu- 
man mind  is  capable,  even  the  declaration  and  promise 
of  God,  so  that  he  that  believeth  not  God,  hath  made 
hira  a  liar.     Therefore,  when  God  calls  on  us  to  exer- 


SOPHISMSECOND.  45 

cise  faith,  he  gives  us  certainty  as  its  foundation.  But 
here,  in  the  case  of  the  apostolical  succession,  it  is 
demanded  of  us  that  we  exercise  faith  in  an  acknow- 
ledged uncertainty  !  The  uncertainty  is  confessed,  is 
avowed,  and  then  is  made  a  basis  of  faith,  and  that 
faith  represented  as  essential  to  salvation  !  When  God 
tells  us  to  believe,  he  says.  Believe,  because  it  is 
proved;  because  it  is  certain  by  the  highest  proof. 
But  these  prelatical  divines,  these  logicians  of  the  apos- 
tolical succession,  actually  call  on  us  to  believe  because 
it  is  not  proved ;  nay,  because  it  cannot  be  proved. 
Credo,  quia  impossibile  est.  And  then,  to  cover  and 
conceal  the  emptiness  of  their  pretensions,  they  tell  us, 
in  effect,  that  nothing  can  be  proved  distinctly  and 
clearly;  that  in  the  nature  of  things  w^e  have  to  believe 
without  proof  Perhaps,  then,  they  would  have  us  rely 
on  intuition  for  the  proof  of  the  apostolical  succession. 
Not  at  all;  nothing  so  definite  as  that;  faith  must  have 
a  larger  sweep  than  that ;  this  faculty  has  gained  a 
new  development  in  the  apostolical  successionists,  and 
whereas  the  loftiest  form  of  faith  has  ever  been,  I 
believe  because  I  know,  with  these  men  the  all-digest- 
ing, all-devouring  formula  is  this,  I  believe,  because  I 
do7iH  know ;  I  believe,  because  it  is  uncertain. 

When  we  call  for  the  proof  of  their  pretensions  from 
God's  word,  they  first  of  all  prepare  the  way  by  dete- 
riorating that  kind  of  proof,  and  diminishing  men's 
confidence  in  its  importance  ;  just  like  usurers,  who 
secretly  clip  their  neighbors'  coin,  in  order  that  they 
may  get  it  all  into  their  own  hands  at  a  discount. 
Knowing  well  that  they  cannot  j)roduce  one  single 
text  of  scripture  definitely  in   their   favor,   definitely 


46  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

teaching  their  exclusive  dogma,  they  dare  to  assert,  in 
the  face  of  the  knowledge  of  all  Christendom  to  the 
contrary,  that  not  even  one  of  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel  can  be  proved  in  the  same  way,  by 
definite,  conclusive  passages.  They  dare  to  say  that 
Socinianism  itself  w^ould  triumph  over  evangelical 
truth,  if  that  truth  had  to  rely  upon  distinct,  conclusive, 
explicit  texts  !  I  am  at  a  loss  how  to  characterize  with 
sufficient  severity  the  bold  yet  treacherous  wickedness 
of  such  sophistry.  Rather  than  that  our  cause  should 
not  be  supported,  or  should  seem  to  want  support,  say 
these  men,  we  will  involve  the  Christian  system  itself 
in  our  own  weakness,  we  will  bury  the  gospel  itself  in 
our  ruins.  If  you  will  not  eat  our  loaves  alone,  say 
they  to  the  world,  if  you  will  not  consent  to  take  only 
the  bread  marked  at  our  counter,  we  will  debase  and 
poison  the  bread  of  all  Christendom.  If  you  will  insist 
upon  the  apostolical  succession  being  proved  from  the 
Bible,  then  we  will  make  all  scriptural  proof  so  doubt- 
ful as  to  be  worthless,  so  doubtful,  that  you  will  be 
glad  to  go  to  tradition  to  defend  yourselves  from  the 
attacks  of  infidels. 

Their  course  is  like  that  of  men,  who,  having  to 
fight  in  an  open  field  with  weapons  to  the  use  of  which 
they  are  unaccustomed,  but  which  their  -adversaries 
have  at  perfect  command,  have  gone  stealthily  and  put 
poison  into  the  handles  of  their  opponents'  swords,  and 
unscrewed  the  locks  of  their  muskets,  and  wet  their 
powder.  Just  so  with  these  logicians  of  the  apostoli- 
cal succession  ;  they  dare  not  cope  with  the  word  of 
God  as  it  is ;  they  wet  the  powder. 

But  not  only  so,  they  have  another  resort.     When 


SOPHISM     SECOND.  47 

you  demand  their  proof  from  Scripture,  they  say  it  must 
not  surprise  you,  nor  weaken  your  faith  in  their  claims, 
even  though  you  should  not  find  them  distinctly  set 
forth  in  the  Bible  ;  for  you  are  to  remember  that  there 
are  a  great  many  things  which  our  Saviour  doubtless 
taught,  that  are  not  set  down  there,  and  prelatical 
episcopacy  was  doubtless  one  of  them ;  so  you  must 
consider  that  w^hich  is  not,  as  though  it  were ;  you 
must  have  a  faith  that  shall  honor  the  Scriptures  by 
believing  what  would  have  been  in  them,  if  there  could 
have  been  another  volume.  You  are  to  remember  the 
declaration  of  John,  that  if  all  that  our  Saviour  said 
and  did  on  earth  had  been  written,  the  world  itself 
could  not  have  contained  the  books.  Now  a  book  on 
Diocesan  Episcopacy,  clearly  teaching  it,  and  making 
it  essential  to  salvation,  there  can  be  no  doubt  was 
among  those  unwritten  books  of  the  Saviour.  You  must, 
therefore,  have  a  faith  not  merely  in  Scripture,  but 
above  Scripture,  comprising  those  things  which  are  not, 
as  though  they  w^ere.  When  you  read  the  Bible  in 
search  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy,  and  find  it  not,  then 
say  w^ithin  yourself,  This  is  doubtless  one  of  the  lost 
books  of  the  Saviour ;  this  is  one  of  those  volumes  es- 
sential to  salvation,  that  would  have  been  written,  if 
the  world  had  been  large  enough.  Poor  world !  I 
must  learn  not  to  circumscribe  my  faith  by  its  dimen- 
sions ;  it  is  obviously  not  big  enough  to  contain  the 
august  claims,  the  vast  magnificence,  the  divine  au- 
thority of  Diocesan  Episcopacy  fully  written  out  and 
authenticated.  The  very  want  of  such  authentication 
is  the  highest  proof  of  the  grandeur  of  those  claims. 
A  point  of  minor  importance,  such  as  the  doctrine  of 


48  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

the  atonement,  might  be  set  forth  in  explicit  texts;  but 
a  point  of  such  might,  magnitude  and  glory,  as  the 
apostolical  succession,  scorns  to  be  so  confined ;  the 
world  would  not  hold  the  books  that  should  be  written. 
Call  for  texts  in  proof  of  it?  Who  does  not  see  the 
folly  of  such  presumption?  Texts  to  prove  the  apos- 
tolical succession  ?  Why,  the  very  foundation  of  your 
faith  in  it  must  be  its  utter  uncertainty. 

THIRD  SOPHISM,  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  NATURE  OF  THE 
MINISTERIAL  OFFICE. 

(ITT.)  Another  sophism  respects  the  nature  of  the 
ministeiial  office,  and  the  dignity  of  the  ministers  of 
Christ,  and  assumes  for  them  an  origin  and  independency 
apart  from  the  church  and  superior  to  it.  I  have  even 
been  accused  of  degrading  the  ministerial  office,  and 
derogating  from  my  own  dignity  as  a  minister,  be- 
cause I  have  in  a  former  lecture  deduced  the  ministers 
of  Christ  from  the  church,  from  Christ's  own  sacred, 
blessed  body  !  He  can  have  read  the  New  Testament 
to  very  little  purpose,  and  must  have  magnified  his 
office  more  than  the  Saviour  and  the  church,  who  can 
possibly  admit  the  conception  that  the  ministers  of 
Christ  do  not  come  from  the  church  of  Christ.  The 
object  in  such  an  one's  mind  doubtless  is  this,  namely, 
to  make  the  ministry  superior  to  the  church,  and  the 
church  dependent,  not  so  much  on  Christ,  as  on  the 
ministry.  This  is  the  essence  of  a  Hierarchy,  and  this 
is  the  element  of  the  Hierarchical  Despotism.  But  I 
blush  and  am  ashamed  that  any  man,  who  has  not  the 
self-interest  of  prelatical  dignity  to  blind  him,  and  so 


SOPHISM     THIRD.  49 

may  be  supposed  to  look  with  more  impartiality  upon 
the  subject,  should  estimate  the  office  of  the  ministry 
and  the  dignity  of  the  minister,  not  by  the  service  done 
to  Christ's  body  in  the  enlarging  and  edifying  of  it,  but 
by  the  lordship  over  that  body  !  Shame  on  such  a 
palpable  manifestation  of  Hierarchical  ambition  ! 

We  open  the  New  Testament,  and  what  do  we  find  1 
Do  we  find  the  least  sanction  of  this  assumed  superi- 
ority ?  "  And  he  came  to  Capernaum  :  and  being  in 
the  house,  he  asked  them,  What  was  it  that  ye  dis- 
puted among  yourselves  by  the  way  ?  But  they  held 
their  peace,  for  by  the  way  they  had  disputed  among 
themselves  who  should  be  the  greatest.  And  he  sat 
down,  and  called  the  twelve,  and  saith  unto  them.  If 
any  man  desire  to  be  first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all, 
and  servant  of  all."  The  very  first  introduction  of 
these  Hierarchical  propensities  and  pretensions  pro- 
duced an  ambitious  rivalry  and  quarrel  in  the  very 
presence  of  the  Saviour.  "  And  he  said,  ye  know  that 
the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over 
them,  and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon 
them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you :  but  whoso- 
ever will  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be  your  minis- 
ter, and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him 
be  your  servant :  Even  as  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to 
be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life 
a  ransom  for  many!  og  idi^  OO.ri  h>  i>ixXv  ehamq^Toq^ 
I'arw  in^iv  bovkoi'  yul  o?  idv  del-r]  h'  vfup  fjeyug  yeriadut, 
Marco  vfxwv  didnoi^og.^'  And  what  do  you  conceive  to  be 
the  meaning  of  the  word  minister  ?  Lord  or  governor, 
you  will  say,  surely,  according  to  the  Hierarchical  sys- 
tem.  No  such  thing.   The  one  of  these  words,  diuxoro^^ 


50  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

signifies  a  servant,  a  free  serving  man,  the  other  dovXos, 
signifies  a  servant  of  all  work,  a  slave.  And  our  blessed 
Lord,  to  make  the  nature  of  the  office  more  cons]  icuous 
as  opposed  to  ambition  and  selfishness,  and  as  consisting 
in  doing  good  to  others,  says,  he  that  will  be  great 
among  you,  let  him  be  your  Si(xy.oi>o;^  but  he  that  will 
be  first  of  all,  let  him  be  your  dovXog.  So  the  es- 
sence of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ  is  benevolent  ser- 
vice, serving  others  in  doing  them  good,  especially 
ministering  to  their  spiritual  good  for  Jesus'  sake.  This 
is  the  ministry,  according  as  Christ  himself  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many.  O  wonderful  love  !  0  blessed 
example !  There  was  a  wide  gulf  between  this  ambi- 
tious quarrel  among  the  disciples  for  lordship  and 
supremacy,  and  that  humility  and  love,  with  which 
afterwards  they  were  made  ready  to  wash  one  another's 
feet,  and  to  lay  down  their  own  lives  for  each  other  in 
the  work  of  the  gospel. 

ORIGIN   AND    NATURE    OF   THE    CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY. 

And  now  let  me  ask,  Where  do  the  ministry  come 
from,  if  not  from  the  church  ?  Was  not  the  Apostle 
Paul  in  the  church  before  he  was  in  the  ministry  ? 
And  Timothy,  was  he  not  taken  out  of  th^  church  to 
be  ordained  as  an  Evangelist  ?  And  all  true  ministers 
of  Christ,  do  they  not,  must  they  not  of  necessity,  spring 
from  the  church,  must  they  not  be  members  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  before  they  can  be  prepared  to  minis- 
ter to  that  body  in  spiritual  things  ?  Do  they  bear  the 
church,  or  does  the  church  bear  them  ?  Verily  if  a 
cohort  of  angels  should  bring  a  minister  not  of  Christ's 


S  O  P  H  I  S  M      T  H  I  R  D  .  51 

church  to  any  particular  church,  and  propose  him  for 
ordination,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  that  church  to  re- 
ject him.  A  man  cannot  he  a  minister  of  Christ  with- 
out first  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  When  our 
blessed  Lord  ascended  on  high  and  led  captivity  captive 
and  gave  gifts  unto  men,  he  gave  some  apostles,  and 
some  prophets,  and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors 
and  teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ.  But  where  did  these  gifts  come  from  ?  From 
the  church  of  Christ,  by  the  selection  ol  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
from  the  church  of  Christ,  every  member  of  which  is 
one  of  a  Royal  Priesthood.  Christ  needs  not  to  look 
anywhere  but  unto  his  own  churches  for  his  own  min- 
isters.    They  are  from  the  church,  ybr  the  church. 

The  highest  honor  they  can  have  is  first,  to  be- 
long themselves  to  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
second  to  be  employed  as  servants  of  that  church.  This 
is  their  dignity ;  their  authority  is  service,  and  the  mo- 
ment it  passes  into  anything  else,  it  is  usurpation. 
They  are  not  to  be  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  ex- 
amples to  the  flock.  They  are  not  to  have  dominion 
over  faith,  but  to  be  helpers  of  joy.  Their  rivalry  is  to 
be,  not,  who  shall  be  Prime  Minister  of  Christ  in  his 
kingdom,  but,  who  shall  most  faithfully  and  self-for- 
gettingly  edify  the  body  of  Christ ;  who  shall,  with 
most  humility  of  mind  and  many  tears,  go  beyond  his 
brethren  in  enduring  hardness  as  a  good  soldier  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  in  lowliness  of  mind,  each  esteeming  other 
better  than  themselves.  "  In  all  things  approving  our- 
selves as  the  ministers  of  Christ,  in  much  patience,  in 
afflictions,  in  distresses,  in  necessities,  in  stripes,  in  im- 


52  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

prisonments,  in  tumults,  in  labors,  in  watchings,  in 
fastings  ;  by  pureness,  by  knowledge,  by  long-suffering, 
by  kindness,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  love  unfeigned,  by 
the  word  of  truth,  by  the  power  of  God,  by  the  armor  of 
righteousness, on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left, by  honor 
and  dishonor,  by  evil  report  and  good  report,  as  deceivers 
and  yet  true,  as  unknown  and  yet  well  know^n,  as  dying 
and  behold  \ve  live,  as  chastened,  and  not  killed,  as  sor- 
rowful, yet  always  rejoicing,  as  poor,  yet  making  many 
rich,  as  having  nothing  and  yet  possessing  all  things." 
There  is  an  apostolic  succession  for  you  ;  and  we  may  be 
sure,  if  this  had  been  the  succession  so  vaunted  by  prela- 
tists  and  worldly  minds,  it  w^ould  never  have  been  pro- 
claimed in  bishops'  palaces  ;  the  possession  of  the  apos- 
tolical succession  would  have  been  gladly  relinquished 
and  left  to  proscribed  conventicles.  Yes,  the  apostoli- 
cal succession  itself  would  have  been  the  sign  of  heresy 
ami  schism,  and  not  the  want  of  it. 

HIERARCHICAL  VIEWS  OF  THE    MINISTRY. 

Now,  I  pray  you,  contrast  with  this  view,  w^hich  we 
cannot  deny  to  be  scriptural,  the  opinions  cherished 
and  the  views  entertained,  by  those  who  not  only  pre- 
fer lordship  in  the  church,  but  who  absolutely  hold  up 
the  lunatic  assertion,  that  there  can  be  no  church  with- 
out that  office  and  creature,  a  prelatical  diocesan  bishop. 
I  will  take  a  fair  example.  A  sermon  w-as  preached 
not  long  since,  by  an  episcopal  clergyman  of  this  city, 
from  the  following  text,  namely,  "  Let  a  man  so  ac- 
count of  us,  as  of  the  ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards 
of  the  mysteries  of  God."    Now,  if  you  will  believe  it, 


S  0  P  II  I  S  M      T  H  I  R  D  .  53 

this  profound  expositor  took  the  word  ministers  to  sig- 
nify much  the  same  as  foreign  ministers  sent  by  a  mon- 
arch with  plenipotentiary  powers  to  a  foreign  court. 
Of  course,  they  are  not  in  any  way  accountable  to  that 
court,  and  they  must  punctiliously  stand  upon  all  their 
rights,  and  dignities,  and  authorities  of  their  office,  the 
honor  of  their  monarch  requiring  that  his  representa- 
tive at  a  foreign  court  be  a  match  for  any  grandee  in 
pomp  and  circumstance  of  independent  authority.     Be- 
ing not  selected  nor  commissioned  by  the  people  or  the 
State  to  whom  he  is  sent,  he  has  no  accountability 
whatever  to  them  for  the  manner  in  which  his  trust  is 
performed,  nor  they  any  right  whatever  relative  to  him, 
to  put  him  out  of  his  office,  but  only  the  right  and  the 
duty  to  hear  his  message.     In  the  case  of  the  minister 
of  Christ,  I  suppose  he  would  add  also  the  right   and 
the  duty  of  paying  his  expenses,  supporting  at  court 
the  establishment  of  the  plenipotentiary,  a  thing  which 
we  never  hear  of  foreign  courts  doing,  even  our  plain 
Republic  being  obliged  to  look  up  the  outfit  and  pay 
the  salaries  of  the  plenipotentiaries  it   sends   abroad. 
We  doubt  if  a  more  amusing  example  of  the  exposition 
of  Scripture  to  bolster  up  the  hierarchical  despotism, 
could  be  found  in  all  the  Middle  Ages  than  this.     It  is 
not  necessary  that  we  should  dwell  upon  it  to  show  its 
utter  inconsistency  with  the  description  of  the  ministry 
in  the  gospel  of  Christ ;  but  we  must  notice  the  almost 
ludicrous  application  made  of  the  term  ministers  in  the 
text,  as  if  they  were   analogous  to  foreign  ministers, 
and  invested  with  the  same  powers.     You  will  be  not 
a  little  amused,  when  I  tell  you  that  the  word  in  the 
text  is  imjqiiag,  servants,  so  that  it  follows  that  either 
4 


54  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

the  preacher  knowingly  deceived  his  hearers  in  deduc- 
ing from  this  passage  the  prerogatives  of  a  foreign 
minister  for  the  ministers  of  Christ,  or  he  must  have 
forgotten  to  look  at  the  original,  and  absolutely  sup- 
posed tliat  the  word  would  bear  that  meaning.  The 
word  itself  is  very  striking.  In  reality,  literally,  it 
means  the  rower  of  a  vessel  under  the  captain,  so  that 
the  {)7ii]Qsiag^  the  ministers  of  Christ,  so  far  from  being 
here  represented  as  foreign  plenipotentiaries,  are  repre- 
sented as  laborious  rowers  of  that  sacred  vessel,  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  his  servants,  by  whose  honored  la- 
bor the  vessel  of  the  Church  is  rowed  onward  in  her 
course. 

In  conformity  with  this,  the  Apostle  Paul  says,  "  We 
preach  not  ourselves  but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  and 
ourselves  your  servants  for  Jesus'  sake."  There  are 
but  two  passages  in  which  the  word  ambassador  is 
■used,  one  of  them  in  Ephesians  vi.  20,  where  Paul  says, 
that  for  the  gospel  he  is  an  ambassador  in  bonds ;  and 
the  other  in  second  Cor.  v.  20,  where  Paul  says  that 
the  ministers  of  Christ  are  ambassadors  to  beseech  men 
to  be  reconciled  to  God.  There  seem  to  have  been 
some  persons,  even  in  Paul's  own  day,  dissatisfied  with 
this  remarkable  humility  of  the  apostle.  They  thought 
he  degraded  his  office  in  making  himself  the  servant  of 
all.  They  demanded  that  their  minister  should  assume 
more  dignity,  glory,  lordship,  authority,  magnificence ; 
and  they  were  so  fond  of  it,  that  rather  than  not  enjoy 
the  spectacle,  they  w^ere  willing  it  should  be  exercised 
over  themselves.  And  Paul  had  to  excuse  himself  to 
them  for  being  so  economical  in  his  habits,  and  for  tak- 
ing so  little  of  the  airs  of  authority  upon  him.     He 


SOPHISM     THIRD.  55 

"Was  not  burdensome  to  them.  Forgive  me,  said  he, 
this  wrong.  There  were  men  glorying  alter  the  flesh, 
whom  the  Corinthians  were  dehghted  with  on  account 
of  their  proud  pretensions.  Such  puffing  and  swelling 
in  the  ministers  made  the  people  think  themselves 
much  greater  than  before.  They  were  delighted  with 
such  foolery.  "  Ye  suffer  fools  gladly,  seeing  ye  your- 
selves are  wise.  For  ye  suffer  it,  if  a  man  bring  you 
into  bondage,  if  a  man  devour  you,  if  a  man  take  of 
you,  if  a  man  exalt  himself,  if  a  man  smile  you  on  the 
face."  Never  was  depicted  more  to  the  life  the  char- 
acteristics of  pretension  and  aggrandizement  on  the 
one  side,  and  cringing  servility  and  admiration  on  the 
other.  And  what  was  the  consequence  1  Just  what 
Paul  feared ;  debates,  envyings,  wraths,  strifes,  back- 
bitings,  whisperings,  swelhngs,  tumults. 

THE    MINISTRATION    OF    THE    SPIRIT    NOT  AN  APOSTOLICAL 
SUCCESSION. 

In  the  early  simplicity  of  Christianity,  ministers 
sprang  from  the  church  ft  r  the  church,  and  so  must 
they  ever  do.  It  might  be  doubted  if  in  the  whole  first 
century  of  Christianity  there  was  a  single  instance 
in  which  any  church  possessed  a  minister,  who  was  not 
at  first  one  of  its  own  simple  members.  When  men 
became,  by  the  new  creation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Chris- 
tians, they  had  in  themselves  the  germ  of  future  minis- 
ters. If  they  desired  the  office  of  a  bishop,  they  might, 
if  need  be,  become  bishops,  on  being  proved  to  possess 
the  simple  holy  qualifications  enumerated  by  Paul.  So 
far   as  they  were  faithful   Christians,  they  were  all 


56  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

preachers  of  the  word.  It  had  been  promised  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  that  not  apostles  merely,  but  believers, 
should  speak  with  tongues.  It  had  been  promised  in 
the  Old  Testament,  that  not  to  Priests  and  Levites, 
should  public  spiritual  gifts,  or  the  privilege  of  exer- 
cising them  be  restricted,  but  that  upon  all  should  the 
Spirit  be  poured  out ;  sons  and  daughters,  young  men 
and  old,  even  servants  and  hand-maidens  should  see 
visions  and  prophesy  ;  this  should  be  the  ministration  no 
longer  of  a  Levitical,  nor  an  apostolical  succession,  but 
the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,  a  new,  free,  glorious  dis- 
pensation. And  so  it  was,  and  so  it  came  to  pass. 
And  hence,  hardly  three  years  had  elapsed,  and  the 
first  Christian  church  in  the  world,  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem, had  but  become  established  and  numerous,  under 
the  government  and  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  when, 
except  the  Apostles,  they  were  all  scattered  abroad 
throughout  the  region  of  Judea  and  Samaria,  preach- 
ing THE  Word.  They  went  even  to  Phenice,  and  Cy- 
prus, and  Antioch.  Who  were  they,  and  what  was 
their  commission  as  preachers  of  the  gospel  ?  They 
were  simple  Christians,  but  they  were  the  royal  priest- 
hood of  Jesus  Christ.  No  hand  of  Levite,  priest,  or 
bishop  had  touched  them,  but  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
God  was  upon  them,  and  they  were  all  preachers,  as 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance. 

And  this  was  the  way  in  which  the  Lord  Jesus  had 
determined  beforehand  to  form  and  spread  the  Christian 
church ;  not  by  a  Levitical  mould  in  a  new  form  to  be 
called  the  apostolical  succession,  but  by  the  unfettered 
freedom  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit ;  not  by  men 
on  whom  the  Apostles'  hands  had  been  laid,  or  who 


SOPHISMTHIRD.  57 

had  been  commissioned  by  the  Apostles,  as  if  through 
them  alone  was  to  descend  the  unction  of  a  new  priest- 
hood, but  by  men  who,  in  their  own  right  as  Christians, 
though  every  one  of  the  Apostles  had  died  as  soon  as 
the  church   at  Jerusalem  was  formed,  were  kings  and 
priests  unto  God  ;  by  simple  Christians,  simple  mem- 
bers  of  the   church,  some  of  whom  perhaps  had  not 
even  begun  to  exercise  their  gifts  in  the  social  meetings 
of  their  own  native  church,  who  had  been  never  dream- 
ed of  by  the  Apostles  as  preachers,  far  less  set  apart  by 
any  imaginable  form  of  consecration.     But  it  took  the 
fire  of  a  persecution  to  make  them  understand  this  free 
and  sublime   genius  of  the  new  dispensation.      They 
"would  have  continued  fettered  by  the  narrow  genius  of 
Judaism ;  they  would  very  likely  have  established  a 
Hierarchical  church  on  the  old    ambitious   foundation, 
and  a  new  Levitico-Apostolico-Christian  order ;  they 
might  have  appointed  one  of  the  Apostles  as  the  High 
Priest,  and  so  the  first  Pope  would   have  been  elected 
not  at  Rome,  but  at  Jerusalem ;  and  the  bugbear  of 
apostolical  succession  would  have  been  among  the  first, 
as  it  w^as  among  the  latest  of  the  corruptions  of  Chris- 
tianity.     Such,  I  say,  w^ould   in  all   probability  have 
been  the  consequences  of  numbers,  indolence,  ambition, 
and  worldly  prosperity.    Had  they  stayed  much  longer 
at  Jerusalem,  the  old  quarrel  for  supremacy  between 
Zebedee's  children  and  the  rest  of  the  disciples  would 
in  all  probability  have  broken  out  anew,  and  that  strife 
for  lordship,  which  constituted  the  essence  of  the  Hier- 
archical Despotism  for  ages,  would  have  begun  on  the 
spot  where  our  blessed  Lord  washed  his  disciples'  feet. 
But  He  who  knoweth  what  is  in  man,  and  who  per- 


58  F  0  U  R  T  H    L  E  C  T  U  R  E  . 

haps  already  saw  the  germinations  of  ecclesiastical  am- 
bition in  this  great  successfal  church  in  Jerusalem,  and 
that  those  many  thousand  disciples  had  forgotten  for 
what  purpose  they  were  called,  even  to  go  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  inter- 
posed in  his  providence,  and  permitted  a  violent  perse- 
cution to  scatter  them  in  every  direction,  preaching  the 
word.  So  they  had  to  go,  unfortunate,  uncommission- 
ed men,without  the  benefit  of  the  apostolical  succession. 
Not  one  of  them  could  show  a  license,  not  one  pos- 
sessed an  Apostolical  Diploma,  and  (most  melancholy 
defalcation)  except  the  six  persons  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed to  settle  the  pecuniary  difficulties  between  the 
Grecians  and  the  Hebrews,  not  one  had  ever  the  hand 
of  an  Apostle  laid  on  him.  Nevertheless,  forth  they 
went,  and  that  persecution,  in  the  formation  of  churches 
as  independent  as  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  put  a  stop 
to  the  Hierarchical  Despotism  for  more  than  two  hun- 
dred years.  They  went  everywhere,  preaching  the 
word.  How  greatly  it  is  to  be  lamented,  that  as  they 
w^ere  busied  from  region  to  region  gaining  converts 
and  gathering  churches,  some  incarnation  of  the  modern 
apostolical  succession  could  not  have  been  present  to 
denounce  such  assemblies  as  unhallowed  conventicles, 
and  to  say.  There  can  be  no  church  without  a  Bishop  ! 
They  went  everywhere,  preaching  the  word.  Who 
were  these  men,  that  thus  dared  to  preach  out  of  the 
regular  line  of  apostolical  succession  ?  Some  of 
them  were  carpenters,  and  some  were  tent-makers,  and 
some  were  armorers,  and  others  were  tanners,  and 
others  were  fishermen,  and  tax-gatherers.  Some  were 
Greeks,  some  Jews,  some  Romans.      Some  of  them 


BOP  H  I  SM     T  H  I  R  D.  59 

were  from  Cyprus  and  Cyrene,  and  coming  to  the  city 
of  Antioch,  these  men,  having-  a  kindness  to  their 
countrymen,  preached  to  the  Grecians — preached  the 
Lord  Jesus ;  they  preached,  though  never  ordained, 
and  what  is  more,  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with  them, 
and  a  great  number  believed  and  turned  to  the  Lord. 
Here  then  was  a  church,  and  here  were  ministers, 
neither  of  whom  had  ever  in  their  lives  looked  upon 
that  thing  of  modern  Hierarchical  w^orship,  a  bishop. 

But  what  I  \vish  now  to  speak  of  particularly  is  the 
fact  that  these  preachers,these  ministers  of  Christ,  sprang 
out  of  the  church.  When  the  disciples  from  Jerusalem 
had,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  gained  a  sufficient  number 
of  converts,  they  formed  churches,  and  out  of  these 
churches  were  chosen  the  future  ministers  of  these 
churches.  They  were  chosen,  without  any  question,  in 
the  same  way  in  which  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem  had 
set  the  example  of  such  selections,  when  men  were  to 
be  appointed  for  office,  by  the  brethren  of  the  church 
looking  out  among  themselves  such  men  as  were  sig- 
nalized for  faith  and  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  ap- 
pointing such  to  be  their  overseers.  So  the  churches 
were  not  only  churches  while  without  bishops,  but  they 
made  their  own  bishops.  And  those  that  did  not  do 
so  in  the  first  instance,  or  were  content  for  some  time 
mutually  to  worship  and  edify  one  another  as  the  Spirit 
gave  them  utterance,  did  so  afterw^ards,  at  the  instance 
of  Barnabas  and  Paul.  It  was  not  Barnabas  and  Paul, 
it  was  not  any  of  the  Apostles  who  selected  for  the 
churches  men  to  be  their  teachers  ;  it  was  the  churches 
themselves,  who  chose  for  themselves,  out  of  their  own 
number,  such  men  as  they  had  found  endowed  with 


60  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  men  were  maJe 
their  elders.  In  that  same  church  at  Antioch  were 
prophets  and  teachers,  on  whom  no  apostles'  hands 
had  ever  been  laid  in  consecration.  These  men  were 
not  the  less  the  ministers  of  Christ  for  that. 

THE    HIERARCHICAL  VIEW  OF  THE    MINISTRY  CORRUPT  AND 
UNSCRIPTURAL. 

Through  the  influence  of  the  Hierarchical  Despot- 
ism there  has,  in  fact,  come  to  be  a  complete  cor- 
ruption in  men's  ideas  in  regard  to  the  relative  power 
and  position  of  the  ministry  and  the  church.  It  is  the 
church  which  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  ministry 
come  out  of  it.  The  church  does  not  come  out  of  the 
ministry,  but  out  of  Christ ;  the  church  does  not  depend 
upon  the  ministry  for  its  existence,  but  upon  Christ. 
So  far  from  its  being,  in  any  sense  whatever,  true,  that 
there  can  be  no  church  without  a  bishop,  the  truth  is, 
that  there  can  be  no  bishop,  no  minister,  pastor,  elder, 
without  a  church.  A  preacher  of  the  gospel  there 
might  be,  before  there  was  any  church  in  existence; 
the  very  first  person  converted  by  the  Saviour  might 
have  been  made  by  him  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  be- 
fore there  was  another  believer  in  existence.  But 
such  an  one  could  not  be  a  bishop,  an  elder,  without  a 
church,  in  and  over  which  alone  there  could  be  the 
office  of  a  bishop.  The  order  is  evidently  this  ;  first 
believers,  then  preachers  of  the  gospel,  then  churches, 
then  bishops  or  elders.  "Where  there  are  believers, 
there,  in  the  highest,  most  universal,  most  glorious 
sense,  is  the  church  of  Christ,  and  preachers  of  the 
gospel  must  come  out  of  that  church,  and  bishops  and 


SOPHISM     THIRD 


61 


elders  must  come  out  of  that  church,  and  not  that 
church  out  of  bishops.  Wherever  there  are  believers 
in  Christ,  there,  in  those  believers,  are  the  ministers  of 
Christ,  if  he  chooses  them  as  such  ;  and  he  chooses 
them,  or  none.  They  are  a  royal  priesthood,  a  pecu- 
liar people,  to  show  forth  his  praises,  and  of  them,  and 
for  them,  he  chooses  his  overseers  of  the  flock. 

This,  it  is  manifest,  is  the  view  taken  by  the  Apostle 
Peter,  when  he  says  to  believers,  "  Ye  are  built  up,  a 
spiritual  house,  an  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ.  Ye  are 
a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  na- 
tion, a  peculiar  people,  that  ye  should  show  forth  the 
praises  of  him  who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness  into 
his  marvellous  light."  "  As  every  man  hath  received 
the  gift,  even  so  minister  the  same  one  to  another,  as 
good  stewards  of  the  manifold  grace  of  God.  If  any 
man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles  of  God  ;  if 
any  man  minister,  let  him  do  it  as  of  the  ability  which 
God  giveth."  The  exhortations  are  given  to  believers 
in  general,  besides  his  exhortations  to  the  elders,  to 
feed  the  flock  of  God.  To  the  same  general  purpose 
is  that  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  "  And 
many  of  the  brethren  in  the  Lord,  waxing  confident 
by  my  bonds,  are  much  more  bold  to  speak  the  word 
without  fear."  To  the  same  purpose  is  that  declara- 
tion in  the  Revelation  of  John,  "  The  Spirit  and  the 
Bride  say,  Come.  And  let  him  that  heareth  say.  Come." 
There  is  nothing  clearer  than  this,  that  the  members  of 
the  primitive  apostolic  churches,  just  so  far  as  they 
were  faithful  to  Chri'^t,  all  considered  themselves,  every- 
where, as  in  a  most  important  sense  preachers  of  the 
4* 


63  rOURTH     LECTURE. 

word  ;  and  such  preachers  were  the  precious  stuff  out 
of  which  bishops  or  elders  were  made.  The  overseers 
and  preachers  of  the  church  came  out  of  the  church, 
and  not  the  church  out  of  its  overseers.  So  that  if,  at 
any  time,  the  whole  ministry  had  been  swept  away  by 
death,  a  new  ministry  could  be  raised  out  of  that  body 
of  Christ  whence  the  first  ministry  emanated.  Hence 
it  is  not  necessary  to  maintain  an  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion in  the  ministry;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  it  can  be 
shown,  that  there  has  not  been  such  an  uninterrupted 
succession  ;  there  having  been  a  long  and  dreary  night 
and  chaos  of  wickedness  in  the  undisputed  reign  of 
Antichrist,  in  which  it  cannot  be  proved  that  any  of 
those  called  the  ministers  of  Christ  were  ever  employed 
in  that  work  which  constitutes  the  office  of  the  minis- 
try, preaching  the  word.  But  a  succession  of  true  be- 
lievers might  exist,  the  church  of  Christ  might  exist, 
though  all  the  so-called  ministers  of  Christ  were  wolves 
in  sheep's  clothing.  And  it  is  the  church,  of  which 
Christ  has  promised  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it ;  and  out  of  the  church  Christ  can, 
in  the  darkest  times,  as  among  the  Waldenses,  raise  up 
faithful  witnesses  and  preachers,  though  no  human 
hand  was  ever  laid  upon  them  in  ordination.  The  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  church  is  a  security  of  the  suc- 
cession of  the  ministry ;  and  not  the  succession  of  the 
ministry  a  security  of  the  existence  of  the  church.  The 
existence  of  the  church  depends  upon  the  word  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  ;  and  the  existence  of  the  ministry  de- 
pends on  the  existence  of  the  church,  and  must  come 
out  of  the  church. 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  63 

FOURTH  SOPHISM   CONNECTED  WITH  THE  WORD 
ORDINATION. 

(IV.)  The  next  point  of  sophistry  to  be  noted  respects 
the  word  ordination,  which  hoary,  hierarchical  usage  has 
as  much  entangled  and  furbelowed  with  sea-weed  as 
the  word  bishop.  The  absurd  ideas  prevalent  in  re- 
gard to  it,  and  the  usages  founded  thereon,  so  contrary 
to  the  usage  of  the  primitive  churches,  make  it  a  mat- 
ter of  great  importance  to  go  to  the  bottom,  and  find 
what  it  really  means.  The  ambition  of  hierarchists 
and  churchmen  has  attached  so  many  solemn  fungi  to 
the  simplicity  of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  that,  in  cut- 
ting them  away,  you  seem,  to  some  minds,  as  if  you 
■were  cutting  aw^ay  the  Gospel  itself.  If  a  man,  having 
an  enormous  wen  hanging  at  the  end  of  his  nose, should 
succeed  in  persuading  himself  and  others,  that  this  wen 
was  the  perfection  of  humanity,  and  that  all  men's 
noses  ought  to  be  made  to  hang  out  in  such  a  bag-like 
excrescence,  this  nasal  fanaticism  could  not  be  a  great- 
er absurdity,  than  the  pretence  that  prelates  are  essen- 
tials to  the  being  of  a  church,  or  prelatical  ordination 
to  the  being  of  the  Christian  ministry. 

I  shall  show,  first,  that  ordination  by  laying  on  of 
hands  is  not  necessary  to  constitute  a  Christian  minis- 
ter ;  second,  that  ordination  by  other  Christian  minis- 
ters is  not  necessary  to  constitute  such  a  minister;  and, 
third,  that  the  appointment  of  one  of  their  own  num- 
ber by  any  Christian  church,  in  accordance  with  the 
requisites  for  the  character  of  a  bishop  laid  down  in 
Paul's  epistle  to  Timothy,  is  all  that  is  necessary  to 
constitute  a  true  Heaven-commissioned  Christian  min- 


64  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

ister.     I  shall  show  these  points  one  by  one  with  the 
utmost  clearness. 

DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  EXPEDIENCY  AND  DIVINE  RIGHT. 

But  here  let  it  be  distinctly  marked,  that  I  distin- 
guish between  what  may  be  deemed  expedient  by  dif- 
ferent churches,  and  under  different  forms  of  church 
polity,  and  what  can  be  shown  to  be  necessary  from 
the  Word  of  God  ;  between  what  may  be  deemed 
necessary  now,  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  precaution, 
or  otherwise,  and  what  was  evidently  necessary  as  a 
matter  of  inspiration  and  divine  authority.  The  Pres- 
byterians may,  for  centuries,  have  adopted  a  form  of 
government  which,  among  themselves,  makes  ordina- 
tion by  other  ministers  necessary  to  the  ministerial  com- 
mission. And  hence  it  would  be  the  highest  disorder 
for  any  man  among  them  to  assume  that  commission 
•without  such  ordination.  The  Congregationalists  may 
have  adopted  a  similar  order,  so  that  it  would  be  dis- 
orderly and  injurious  not  to  adhere  to  it.  The  Episco- 
palians may  have  adopted  a  similar  order,  restricting, 
however,  the  whole  essence  of  the  ministerial  function 
to  the  virtue  hidden  in  the  palm  of  a  prelatical  bishop. 
But  ordination  in  neither  of  these  forms  is  essential  to 
the  Christian  ministry,  because,  in  neither  of  them  can 
it  be  shown  to  be  of  divine  obligation,  of  the  nature  of 
a  divine  precept. 

MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  ORDINATION, 

Now,  first,  as  to  the  sophism  connected  with  the  word 
ordination  :  the  idea  commonly  connected  with  it  is 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  65 

that  of  a  mysterious  transfer  of  gifts,  powers,  functions, 
the  passing  of  a  sort  of  ecclesiastical  electricity  in  that 
transaction,  not  received,  possessed,  or  experienced  be- 
fore. Would  any  of  my  hearers,  accustomed  at  all  to 
the  hierarchical  use  of  the  word  ordain,  or  ordination, 
ever  dream  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament  is  simply  and  solely  appoint,  or  appoint- 
ment ?  We  have  come  very  generally  to  signify  by  it 
the  ceremony  of  inauguration  into  the  office  of  the  min- 
istry, or  investiture  therewith.  But  disintegrated  from 
all  hierarchical  excrescences,  and  reduced  to  its  New 
Testament  simplicity,  it  means  simply  appointment  ; 
and  this,  first,  either  by  divine  authority,  special,  extra- 
ordinary, or  by  the  choice  of  the  churches,  or,  lastly, 
by  such  choice  with  the  ratification  of  the  miraculously 
endowed  officers  of  the  New  Testament  churches.  But 
that  there  are  no  directions  whatever  as  to  any  mode 
of  ordination,  which  w^as  to  be  binding  on  the  churches, 
any  particular  mode  as  fixed  of  God,  is  so  clear,  that 
the  most  fanatical  hierarchists  have  never  pretended 
that  there  were. 

ORDINATION    IN    THE    WORD    Kudlai7]/ill. 

The  two  principal  words,  from  which  our  English 
word  "  ordain"  is  derived  in  this  connection,  are  these, 
namely,  audlaTTjui  and  yjiQoioviM.  The  first  of  these 
words  occurs  in  Titus  i.  5,  y.uTuaii]ar^g,  appoint  elders 
in  every  city ;  and  means  simply  appoint,  establish, 
or,  if  you  please,  set  in  office.  But  no  form,  no  cere- 
mony, is  included  in  the  meaning,  or  connected  with 
it.     There  is  nothing  of  the  prelatical  signification  of 


66  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

the  word  ordain.  Titus  was  no  Bishop,  never  ordain- 
ed as  such,  but  a  special,  extraordinary  assistant  of  the 
Apostle,  commissioned  and  endowed  by  him  to  act  in 
his  place,  and  do  what  he  would  have  done,  as  an  ex- 
traordinary officer  of  Christ,  with  extraordinary- powers 
as  an  Evangelist,  in  the  estabhshment  and  arrange- 
ment of  government,  order  and  discipline  in  the  infant 
churches.  That  done,  his  own  office  and  authority 
were  not  to  be  perpetuated,  plainly,  because  they 
would  no  longer  be  needed ;  so  that,  whereas  Titus 
w^as  to  appoint  elders  in  every  city,  he  was  not  to  ap- 
point Evangelists,  not  any  such  extraordinary  officers 
as  his  own  office  of  special  assistance  to  the  Apostles, 
nor  was  any  provision  to  be  made,  nor  were  any  direc- 
tions given,  for  the  future  appointment  or  perpetuity 
of  such  offices,  nor  in  point  of  fact  w^ere  any  such 
directions  ever  given,  or  any  such  offices  ever  estab- 
lished. 

Titus  evidently  had  the  same  office  as  Timothy,  and 
neither  of  them,  there  is  the  least  reason  to  believe, 
w^ere  ever  ordained  Bishops ;  both  were  extraordinary 
fellow-laborers  with  the  Apostles,  of  whose  precise 
office,  that  no  pattern  was  to  be  left  in  the  churches, 
is  perfectly  plain,  in  that  none  w^as  left,  nor  any  direc- 
tions given,  nor  any  powers  committed  to  any  persons 
for  this  purpose.  No  person  would  dare  take  upon 
himself  this  authority  of  Titus,  without  precisely  the 
same  commission  as  Titus ;  and  that  it  was  felt  and 
acknowledged  as  an  extraordinary  commission  is  mani- 
fest, in  that  no  person  contemporary  with,  or  after 
him,  did  take  upon  himself  the  same  commission.  No 
one  person  pretended  to  have  or  to  exercise  a  similar 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  67 

authority  in  appointing  elders.  And  every  man  in  his 
senses  must  have  reasoned  thus  :  If  Paul  had  meant 
that  other  persons  in  succession  should  exercise 
the  authority  of  Titus,  he  would  necessarily  have 
added,  as  he  was  careful  to  do  in  regard  to  the  truth 
of  the  gospel  to  be  preached,  This  same  power  of 
appointing  elders,  and  this  same  power  of  setting  in 
order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  commit  thou  to  an- 
other person  also,  with  a  commandment  to  him  to 
commit  it  to  his  successor :  and  this  would  have  been 
the  perfection  of  the  Hierarchical  Despotism  to  begin 
with  ;  this  would  have  been  to  constitute  the  infant 
church  as  a  consummate  finished  Papacy.  For  the 
power  of  appointing  the  officers  of  any  body  or  polity, 
is  supreme  power  over  that  body  or  polity. 

We  do  not,  however,  admit,  that  even  in  the  case  of 
Titus  this  word,  xaTuaTi]afig,  signifies  in  him  supreme 
authority,  but,  as  is  proved  by  the  usage  of  the  New 
Testament  churches,  and  by  the  custom  of  the  Apostles 
in  their  own  exercise  of  this  authority,  an  appointment 
by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  churches  j  the  churches 
signifying  whom  they  would  have  to  be  their  ministers, 
their  elders,  what  persons  there  were  proved  among 
them  to  be  men  of  faith  and  blameless,  whom  the 
Apostles  then  inaugurated  in  their  office,  ratifying  with 
prayer  the  choice  of  the  body  of  believers.  This  same 
word,  nudian/fti^  is  used  in  Acts  vi.  3,  in  a  way  which 
proves  this  allegation.  And  this  was  manifestly 
necessary,  inasmuch  as  the  Apostles,  in  passing  among 
the  churches  to  ordain  elders,  could  not  be  supposed, 
without  an  immediate  miraculous  revelation  from  God, 
to  know  what  persons  in  the  churches  had  been  proved 


68  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

blameless  and  suitable  for  the  office.  And  that  they 
did  not  rely  upon  such  miraculous  revelation  in  such 
cases  is  clear  from  Acts  vi.  3,  where,  in  a  matter  of 
much  less  moment,  and  in  a  case  which  would  inevita- 
bly, in  some  respects,  constitute  a  precedent  for  the 
after  usage  of  the  churches  in  the  appointment  of 
officers,  they  said  to  the  multitude  of  the  brethren. 
Look  ye  out  among  yourselves  men  suitable  to  the 
office  ;  relying  not  upon  their  own  inspiration,  nor 
claiming  any  power  of  appointment  by  themselves,  but 
appealing  to  the  people,  the  brethren,  the  church,  the 
honored  body  of  Christ.  Of  course  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
always  dwells  in  that  body,  and  guides  it,  and  the 
w^isdom  of  selection  and  the  authority  of  appointment 
must  always  dwell  in  that  body  under  its  Great  Head  ; 
and  its  officers  must  spring  out  from  itself,  according 
to  its  own  wants,  and  the  dictate  of  its  Head  ;  just  as 
the  hand  springs  from  the  body,  and  is  not  attached  to 
it,  or  set  upon  it,  by  a  foreign  creation,  by  a  separate 
power. 

So  much  for  the  meaning  of  ordination  in  that  w^ord 
aadiaTrjiii,  It  is  simply  an  appointment,  and  no  trans- 
fer or  communication  of  ministerial  power,  or  ministe- 
rial inspiration,  or  ministerial  holiness,  or  ministerial 
gifts  in  any  way.  It  is  a  simple  appointment,  on  the 
ground  of  those  gifts  having  been  observed  as  an  en- 
dowment by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  persons  thus  marked 
and  sealed  as  it  were,  as  suitable  subjects  of  such  ap- 
pointment. It  is  no  transfer,  or  communication  of  such 
gifts,  nor  any  transfer  of  any  power  of  office ;  for  God 
has  not  committed  the  power  of  making  such  a  trans- 
fer to  any  individual ;  the  power  is  in  the  office,  if  a 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  69 

person  be  appointed  to  it,  but  it  does  not  and  cannot 
pass  over  to  the  person  from  other  persons,  as  a  hidden, 
invisible,  mysterious  conveyance.  Nothing  of  the  kind 
takes  place.  The  person  appointed  to  the  office,  re- 
ceives such  power  in  the  otTice  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  not  from  the  persons  appointing  him  ;  if 
they  choose  to  give  him  a  power  over  themselves, 
which  is  not  in  the  office,  very  well ;  if  any  particular 
church,  in  selecting  and  appointing  a  minister  on  the 
ground  of  certain  ministerial  qualifications  evidently 
possessed,  should  say,  in  addition  to  the  power  connect- 
ed by  the  Lord  Jesus  with  the  office  of  the  ministry  for 
our  edification  and  not  for  our  destruction,  we  commit 
to  you  supreme  authority  over  our  church  edifice  and 
rites  of  worship,  to  alter  or  increase  the  same  at  your 
pleasure  ;  this  would  be  a  totally  different  thing  ;  but 
this  does  not  belong  to  the  office.  This  is  a  particular 
agreement,  which  any  particular  church  may  make,  if 
it  pleases,  with  its  minister ;  any  particular  church 
polity  may  even  incorporate  such  a  thing  into  its 
"  standards,"  as  they  are  called,  in  any  article  drawn 
up  in  regard  to  its  ministry ;  but  this  can  never  touch 
the  office  of  a  minister  of  Christ,  can  never  be  incorpo- 
rated with  it,  though  all  the  "  standards"  of  all  the 
churches  in  the  w^orld  were  to  insist  upon  it. 

ORDINATION  AS    INDTCATED  BY  THE    WORD  XciQOTOV^co. 

We  come  to  the  next  word  applied  to  the  appoint- 
ment, or  as  we  say  ordination  of  elders  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, xsiQorovi^aavtsg^  and  the  examination  of  it  in- 
vincibly strengthens  and  confirms  our  argument  on  the 


70  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

word  used  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  itaraaH^Grlg.  For, 
the  meaning  of  this  word,  /eiQOTovio)^  is,  incontrover- 
tibly,  to  choose  by  holding  up  the  hands,  to  choose  and 
appoint  by  vote,  and  so,  to  ordain,  appoint,  constitute. 
The  use  of  the  word  connects  it  with  popular  suffrage. 
So  it  is  used  in  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  of  the  appointment  of 
those  persons  who  were  chosen  of  the.  Churches  to 
travel  with  Paul,  /£t^oTo?'j;(9f/c.  In  the  other  place, 
Acts  xiv.  23,  where  it  is  used  of  the  appointment  of 
elders  in  the  churches,  the  selection  of  this  particular 
word  most  manifestly  points  to  the  choice  of  the 
churches,  as  the  mode  in  which  Barnabas  and  Saul 
appointed  those  officers.  The  literal  interpretation  is 
this,  namely,  And  when  they  had  appointed  for  them 
by  vote  elders  in  every  church,  and  had  prayed  with 
fasting,  they  commended  them  to  the  Lord,  &c.  Or, 
as  it  is  the  participle,  /eigorovriaavTeg^  it  would  be  a 
more  literal  rendering  to  say,  Selecting  or  appointing 
for  them  by  vote,  &c.  As  to  the  manner  of  this  elec- 
tion Calvin  remarks  on  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  as  follows  : — 
JSTotanda  autem  est  species  electionis,  yj^Qoiovia  scilicet 
Greeds  usitata  :  in  qua  prcBibant  auctoritate  et  consilio 
primores,  totamquc  actionem  guhernahant :  pltbs  autem 
sciscebat :  It  was  the  manner  customary  in  Greece  in 
which,  the  leaders  or  nobles  presided  over  the  whole 
transaction,  and  the  people  voted. 

MANNER    OF    BARNABAS    AND    SAUL     IN    APPOINTING    ELDERS. 

Just  thus,  without  any  question,  was  the  manner  of 
Barnabas  and  Saul  in  the  appointment  of  elders.  We 
argue  powerfully  that    it  was,  from  the  instance  of 


SOPHISM      FOURTH.  71 

appointment  in  Acts  vi.  3,  where  the  word  is  najuaH^- 
ao^ev^  but  the  appointment  was  by  the  choice  of  the 
brethren.  Much  more  here,  where  the  word  used  is 
that  which  was  always  apphed  to  the  act  of  choosing 
by  vote,  does  the  appointment  of  elders  by  Barnabas 
and  Saul  point  to  the  same  mode  of  popular  sutfrage. 
There  was,  at  that  time,  too  much  Christian  confidence 
and  love  to  proceed  otherwise,  and  it  is  evident  that 
even  if  Paul  had  felt  as  if  he  could  with  propriety,  by 
virtue  of  the  authority  given  him  by  the  Lord  Jesus, 
appoint  elders  without  consultation  or  choice  of  the 
people,  he  would  not  have  done  it.  He  would  have 
chosen  rather  to  show  his  trust  in  them  as  Christians, 
and  leave  it  with  them  to  select  for  their  rulers  those 
whom  they  would  approve,  and  their  choice  he  would 
sanction.  Indeed,  if  an  assembly  of  Christians,  with 
the  Divine  Spirit  in  their  hearts  and  the  love  of  Christ 
guiding  them,  are  not  to  be  trusted  with  the  choice, 
and  so  with  the  appointment,  of  their  ministers,  much 
less  are  one  or  two  or  a  few  individuals  to  be  so  trusted. 
The  appointment  of  elders  apart  from  the  choice  of  the 
people  was  not  an  act  of  sovereignty  likely  to  be  as- 
sumed by  Paul,  nor  in  point  of  fact  was  it  assumed  by 
any  of  the  Apostles,  it  being  the  universal  custom  in 
that  age,  and  the  age  following,  for  the  people  to 
choose  their  own  clergy.  Of  the  interference  of  a 
bishop,  or  bench  of  bishops,  they  knew  nothing.  Ordi- 
nation with  them- was  simple  appointment  to  office,  and 
no  mysterious  sacramental  transfer  of  sacredness. 

You  will  remark,  that  in  the  ordination  of  elders  by 
Barnabas  and  Saul,  there  was  no  laying  on  of  hands ; 
a  fact  sufficient  of  itself  to  prove  our  first  allegation, 


72  rOURTHLECTURE. 

that  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  necessary  to  the  office 
of  a  Christian  Minister,  nor  any  necessary  part  of  his 
induction  into  such  office.  Nor  is  there  any  instance  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  which  Christian  Ministers,  or 
Presbyters,  or  Bishops,  ever  were  so  inducted  into  office. 
It  will  not  do  to  conjecture  that  they  were  so  inducted  ; 
you  may  conjecture  that  in  the  case  of  the  appointment 
of  elders  by  Barnabas  and  Saul,  they  laid  their  hands 
on  them,  but  there  is  not  the  least  ground  for  suppos- 
ing that  they  did.  You  might  just  as  well  conjecture 
that  they  poured  a  flask  of  consecrated  oil  upon  their 
heads,  and  you  would  have  just  as  much  argument  to 
support  the  supposition.  If  they  had  done  either,  it 
would  in  all  probability  have  been  mentioned.  Some 
things  are  mentioned  which  they  did  do,  as  fasting  and 
praying,  but  there  is  no  word  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands.  Now  as  there  is  always  so  much  particularity 
in  mentioning  this  ceremony,  wherever  it  took  place, 
we  have  the  strongest  ground  for  concluding  that  as  it 
is  never  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  ordination  of 
elders,  it  never  did  take  place.  And  still  more  cer- 
tainly do  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  if  it  is  not 
mentioned  at  all,  it  is  not  mentioned  as  necessary,  not 
delivered  as  a  binding  ceremony,  without  w^hich  a  min- 
ister of  Christ  cannot  be  a  minister.  Tliat  the  elders 
laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  for  his  appointment  to 
office,  is  clear ;  but  that  the  laying  on  of  Timothy's  Or 
Paul's  hands,  was  necessary  to  constitute  an  elder,  is 
nowhere  asserted,  and  nowhere  intimated. 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  73 


CASES  OF  TIMOTHY  AND  TITUS. 


The  idea  of  the  ordination  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  as 
bishops,  seems  to  have  originated  in  the  spurious  addi- 
tion appended  to  Paul's  epistles  to  them,  stating  that 
they  were  ordained  first  bishops  of  Ephesus  and  Crete. 
There  is  not  the  least  reason  to  suppose  that  either  of 
them  was  ever  ordained  bishop,  or  considered  as  such. 
Bishops,  in  the  prelatical,  episcopal  sense,  they  could 
not  have  been,  for  such  an  office  was  not  then  in  exist- 
ence, and  the  word  hnJaxoTiog  will  bear  no  such  mean- 
ing, being  precisely  the  same  as  nQea^vieqog.  Neither 
is  there  the  least  reason  to  suppose  that  they  were  ever 
ordained  bishops  or  elders  in  the  New  Testament  sense, 
but  many  reasons  which  forbid  such  a  supposition, 
which  forbid  the  supposition  that  they  were  connected 
with  any  particular  church  whatsoever.  Nevertheless, 
the  word  used  in  the  appendage  to  the  epistles  of  Paul 
most  strongly  confirms  our  argument  as  to  the  manner 
of  the  ordination  of  elders  or  bishops  by  popular  suf- 
frage, that  word  being,  in  each  case,  zBigoTOi-ridei'ia^ 
appointed  by  vote.  Whatever  office  it  was  to  which 
the  writer  supposes  Timothy  and  Titus  to  have  been 
ordained,  the  ordination  was  evidently  a  popular  ap- 
pointment, and  not  a  presentation  by  a  bishop. 

In  regard  to  those  spurious  subscriptions,  from  which 
principally  has  arisen  the  idea  of  Timothy  and  Titus 
being  bishops  of  Ephesus  and  Crete,  I  need  only  quote 
what  Dr.  Paley  says  of  them  in  his  admirable  work, 
the  Horse  Pauhna3.  "  Six  of  these  subscriptions,"  says 
he,  "  are  false  or  improbable ;  that  is,  they  are  either 
contradicted  by  the  contents  of  the  epistle,  or  are  diffi- 


74  FOURTH     LECTURE, 

cult  to  be  reconciled  with  them."  Among  these  six 
he  reckons  those  to  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  and 
the  epistle  to  Titus. 

'^  The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  the  subscription  asserts 
to  have  been  sent  from  Laodicea ;  yet,  when  St.  Paul 
writes,  *  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus, 
noQEvufAsvog  slg  Maxkdovav  (when  I  set  out  for  Macedo- 
nia'), the  reader  is  naturally  led  to  conclude,  that  he 
wrote  the  letter  upon  his  arrival  in  that  country. 

^'  The  Epistle  to  Titus  is  dated  from  Nicopolis  in  Mace- 
donia, whilst  no  city  of  that  name  is  known  to  have  ex- 
isted in  that  province. 

"  The  use,  and  the  only  use,  which  I  make  of  these 
observations,  is  to  show  how  easily  errors  and  contra- 
dictions steal  in  where  the  writer  is  not  guided  by  ori- 
ginal knowledge.  There  are  only  eleven  distinct  assign- 
ments of  date  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles  (for  the  four  written 
from  Rome  may  be  considered  as  plainly  contemporary) ; 
and  of  these,  six  seem  to  be  erroneous.  I  do  not  attri- 
bute any  authority  to  these  subscriptions.  I  believe 
them  to  have  been  conjectures,  founded  sometimes  upon 
loose  traditions,  but  more  generally  upon  a  consideration 
of  some  particular  text,  without  sufficiently  comparing 
it  with  other  parts  of  the  epistle,  with  different  epistles, 
or  with  the  history.  Suppose,  then,  that  the  subscrip- 
tions had  come  down  to  us  as  authentic  parts  of  the  epis- 
tles, there  would  have  been  more  contrarieties  and  diffi- 
culties arising  out  of  these  final  verses,  than  from  all  the 
rest  of  the  volume.  Yet,  if  the  epistles  had-  been  forged, 
the  whole  must  have  been  made  up  of  the  same  elements 
as  those  of  which  the  subscriptions  are  composed,  viz., 
tradition,  conjecture,  and  inference  ;  and  it  would  have 
remained  to  be  accounted  for  how,  whilst  so  many  errors 
were  crowded  into  the  concluding  clauses  of  the  letters, 
so  much  consistency  should  be  preserved  in  other  parts." 

Timothy  is  known  to  have  been  an  Evangelist.     Of 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  75 

the  manner  of  his  appointment  to  that  office  we  have 
no  account ;  but  we  have  the  mention,  by  Paul,  of  pe- 
culiar gifts  which  were  in  him  by  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  and  the  lay- 
ing on  of  Paul's  own  hands.  Thus,  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14, 
it  is  said,  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  which  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hand  of  the  Presbytery."  And  in  2  Tim.  i.  6,  it  is 
said,  "  That  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in 
thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  Now,  on  the 
comparison  of  these  with  other  passages,  where  the 
laying  on  of  hands  is  mentioned,  especially  Acts  viii. 
17,  20,  and  Acts  xix.  6,  w^e  have  the  same  expression 
as  is  used  by  Paul  to  Timothy,  the  gift  of  God  ;  and 
we  find  it  was  such  an  ostensible  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  doubtless  in  miraculous  power,  that  Simon  Ma- 
gus desired  to  purchase  it  with  money.  It  was  cer- 
tainly not  the  ordinary  spiritual  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  for  it  was  a  gift  in  addition  to  those  influences, 
it  being  baptized  believers  on  whom  it  was  conferred  ; 
and  it  was  something  that  gave  extraordinary  power, 
which  tempted  Simon  Magus  to  try  and  purchase  it. 
How  many  bishoprics  have  been  bought  in  the  same 
manner!  And  how  many  persons  in  the  so-called 
apostolical  succession  have  been  merely  in  the  succes- 
sion of  simony,  receiving  the  pretended  gift  from  men  in 
the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bond  of  iniquity  !  Indeed, 
the  succession  of  Simon  Magus  can  be  far  more  clearly 
established  in  the  church,  than  that  of  the  Apostles. 

In  the  second  passage,  from  Acts  xix.  1 — 6,  we 
have  a  still  more  explicit  interpretation  of  the  nature 
of  that  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  thus  communicated  by 


76  FOURTHLECTURE. 

the  laying  on  of  hands.  For,  first,  it  is  disciples  who 
already  possessed  the  ordinary  converting  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  whom  it  was  given  ;  and  second, 
it  is  said  expressly,  that  "  when  Paul  laid  his  hands 
upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them ;  and  they 
spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied.^'  This  then  was 
the  gift  w^hich  Simon  Magus  desired  to  purchase,  and 
this  was  one  of  the  gifts  which  was  in  Timothy  by  the 
laying  on  of  Paul's  hands.  But  there  is  not  a  single 
passage,  which  intimates  that  the  laying  on  of  the 
Apostles'  hands  was  necessary  for  ministerial  ordina- 
tion. Much  more  did  it  never  convej'^  the  converting 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Where  there  was  faith 
already,  it  evidently  conveyed  a  miraculous  power. 

CASES  OF  BARNABAS  AND  SAUL. 

Several  other  passages  remain  to  be  examined,  from 
which  it  is  evident,  first,  that  so  far  as  the  laying  on 
of  hands  constituted  any  kind  of  ordination,  it  w^as  per- 
formed indiscriminately  by  apostles,  prophets,  teachers 
and  lay  Christians ;  a  fact  fatal  to  the  assumption  of 
the  power  of  ordination  by  any  one  class ;  second,  that 
it  was  not  essential  to  the  oflfice  of  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel ;  third,  that  there  w^ere  men  publicly  recognized 
as  preachers,  of  whom  there  is  no  reason  whatever  to 
believe  that  any  form  of  ordination  whatever  was 
practised  in  regard  to  them. 

The  first  of  these  passages  is  Acts  xiii.  1-— 3,  "  Now 
there  were  in  the  Church  that  w^as  at  Antioch  certain 
prophets  and  teachers ;  as  Barnabas  and  Simeon,  that 
was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Manaen, 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  77 

which  had  been  brought  up  whh  Herod  the  tetrarch, 
and  Saul.  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  foisted, 
the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul, 
for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And 
when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands 
on  them,  they  sent  them  away."  From  this  passage 
it  is  proved,  first,  that  simple  prophets  and  teachers,  of 
whom  there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  suppose  that 
they  had  ever  received  themselves  any  ordination  from 
any  apostle  or  apostles,  or  bishops  or  eiders,  or  any 
officers  at  all,  could  themselves  ordain  others.  From 
a  comparison  of  Acts  xi.  19,  20,  this  Lucius  of  Cyrene 
seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  members  of  the  Church 
at  Jerusalem  scattered  abroad  by  the  persecution,  and 
like  the  other  members  of  that  Church,  preaching  the 
word.  He  had  had  no  ordination  himself,  but  with 
his  fellow  prophets  and  teachers,  was  called  upon  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  ordain  Barnabas  and  SauL 

It  is  proved,  second,  from  this  passage,  that  ordina- 
tion was  not  necessary  to  constitute  ministers  of  Christ, 
for  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  both  evidently  ministers, 
before  they  themselves  received  this  ordination.  They 
were  ministers,  and  had  acted  as  ministers  for  a  long 
time.  Paul  had  preached  at  Damascus  and  in  other 
places,  and  Barnabas,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of 
faith,  had  had  much  people  added  to  the  Lord  under 
his  own  ministry.  But  there  is  no  hint  that  either  of 
them  had  been  ordained.  If,  however,  it  be  asserted 
that  Paul  had  received  such  ordination,  then  the  ex- 
amination of  the  passage,  in  which  it  is  recorded,  is 
likewise  fatal  to  the  hypothesis  of  Episcopalians,  and 
completely  oversets  from  its  foimdation  the  assumption 
5 


78  FOURTH    LECTUaE. 

that  ordination  can  be  performed  only  by  men  in  the 
ministry,  or  in  the  apostolical  succession ;  for  this  first 
ordination  of  Paul  was  by  a  layman  !  The  passage  is 
in  Acts  ix.  10 — 20.  We  now  proceed  to  the  examina- 
tion of  it,  and  we  find  it  perfectly  fatal  to  the  assump- 
tions of  Episcopalians  in  every  shape. 

It  seems  from  this  passage  that  there  was  a  certain 
disciple  at  Damascus,  named  Ananias.  There  were 
other  disciples  at  Damascus,  but  they  do  not  seem,  as 
yetj  to  have  separated  themselves  from  the  Jewish 
Synagogues,  or  to  have  been  constituted  into  a  church. 
They  were  simply  disciples,  having  no  office  whatever, 
but  to  be  lay-preachers,  as  all  the  disciples  were,  hold- 
ing forth  the  word  of  life  as  they  had  opportunity. 
Ananias  was  simply  a  disciple,  having  no  commission 
from  the  Apostles,  no  ordination  in  any  way,  and  per- 
haps having  never  seen  an  apostle.  But  he  was  a 
disciple  of  Christ,  To  this  man  Paul  was  sent,  that 
he  might  receive  ordination,  and  be,  by  this  disciple^ 
baptized !  The  account  of  both  ceremonies  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  And  Ananias  went  his  way,  and  entered  into 
the  house,  and  putting  his  hands  on  him,  said.  Brother 
Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  in 
the  way  as  thou  camest,  hath  sent  me,  that  thou 
misjhtest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  ^ith  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as 
it  had  been  scales ;  and  he  received  sight  forthwith, 
and  arose,  and  was  baptized." 

Now  comparing  this  passage  with  Paul's  own  ac- 
count of  the  transaction,  in  the  22d  chapter  of  Acts, 
you  have  additional  evidence  of  the  relation  of  the 
parties,  and  some  proof  that  Paul  himself  looked  back 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  79 

to  this  transaction  as  his  own  setting  apart  to  the  minis- 
try. View  it  in  whatever  way  you  choose,  it  is  fatal 
to  the  hypothesis  of  Episcopacy.  If  you  say  that  he 
was  ordained,  then  it  is  evident  that  an  apostle  was 
ordained  by  a  layman,  and  what  happened  in  one  case 
might  happen  in  another.  If  you  say  that  he  was  not 
ordained,  then  he  entered  on  his  ministry  and  exercised 
it  without  any  ordination  ;  or,  if  that  later  transaction 
was  his  ordination  a  number  of  years  afterwards,  when 
with  Barnabas  he  was  set  apart  by  the  prophets  and 
teachers  in  Antioch,  then  again  you  have  the  ordina- 
tion of  an  apostle  by  those  who  had  not  themselves 
been  ordained.  The  difficulty  is  inextricable,  the  case 
utterly  subversive  of  all  pretensions  to  an  apostolical 
succession. 

CASE  OF  THE  SEVEN  APPOINTED  TO  SERVE  TABLES. 

The  next  instance  of  ordination  to  which  our  argu- 
ment brings  us,  is  the  first  on  record,  and  exceedingly 
important,  as  showing,  even  in  a  case  in  which  there 
was  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  Apostles,  that  the 
appointment  was  by  the  popular  vote,  and  not  a  pre- 
latical  presentation.  This  was  the  appointment  in 
Acts  vi.  1 — 6,  of  seven  persons  who  were  to  settle  a 
quarrel  between  the  Grecians  and  the  Hebrews,  and 
to  take  charge  of  the  business  of  the  daily  distribution 
of  the  moneys  of  the  common  stock.  This  was  the 
special  business,  with  which  the  Apostles  themselves 
would  not  be  bunlened,  and  therefore  called  upon  the 
brethren  of  the  church  to  look  out  from  themselves  seven 
men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wis» 


so  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

dom,  whom  they  might  appoint  over  this  business. 
Accordingly,  they  proceeded  to  the  election,  and  chose 
seven  persons,  among  whom  were  Stephen  and  Philip, 
and  on  whom  the  Apostles  laid  their  hands  and  prayed. 
The  officers  thus  created  are  nowhere  called  deacons; 
they  might  rather  be  called  treasurers,  for  they  were 
chosen  for  the  one  particular  purpose  of  looking  after 
the  pecuniary  distributions.  For  Episcopalians  to  as- 
sert, as  they  do,  that  here  is  an  authority  for  their  third 
order  in  the  ministry,  is  precisely  to  do  the  work  of 
forgery  with  the  sacred  oracles.  It  is  just  as  if  a  man, 
having  a  ten  pound  note  in  his  possession  («£10) 
should  deliberately  sit  down  and  add  a  cypher  (jGIOO), 
and  then  pass  it  for  a  hundred  pounds.  For,  the 
advocates  of  episcopacy  take  here  an  appointment 
for  a  specified  charge  and  business,  no  way  con- 
nected with  the  Christian  ministry,  and  make  out  of  it 
for  themselves  another  order  in  that  ministry !  But 
these  men  were  neither  appointed  to  preach,  nor 
were  hands  laid  on  them  in  token  of  any  transfer  of 
ministerial  poAver ;  nor  w^as  this  laying  on  of  hands  a 
transmission  to  them  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for 
it  w^as  performed  in  regard  to  those  who  were  already 
full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  eminent  for  their  gifts  and 
graces,  and  who  must  have  exercised  those  gifts  and 
graces,  in  order  to  have  been  known  as  thus  eminent. 
And  they  continued  to  exercise  them,  but  not  specially 
in  consequence  of  this  ordination,  for  they  w^ere  abun- 
dantly fitted  to  teach  and  to  preach  Jesus.  And  Ste- 
phen, full  of  faith  and  powder,  did  great  w^onders  and 
miracles  among  the  people.  He  preached  the  gospel 
with  a  power  that  w^as  irresistible,  but  evidently  not  in 


SOPHISM     FOURTH,  81 

consequence  of  his  ordination,  which  was  an  appoint- 
ment to  a  business  totally  different  from  that  of 
preaching. 

Just  so  it  was  with  Philip.  There  wrs  no  second 
ordination  of  this  individual,  that  we  are  informed  of, 
and  in  this  first  ordination  he  w^as  not  appointed  a 
preacher ;  and  yet  in  the  persecution  that  followed 
upon  the  death  of  Stephen,  he  went  down  to  Samaria 
and  preached  Christ  there.  And  so  were  the  whole 
church  scattered  abroad,  and  went  everywhere, 
PREACHING  THK  WORD.  All  the  ordinatiou  ihey  had  was 
the  sacred  fire  of  persecution  burning  upon  them,  but 
they  were  preachers  of  the  gospel,  they  were  ministers 
of  Christ,  and  some  of  them,  as  we  have  seen,  were 
afterwards  employed  in  appointing  or  ordaining  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul  to  their  special  mission  among  the 
churches.  So  much  honor  will  God  set  upon  the 
gifts  and  graces  of  his  own  Spirit ;  for  it  was  these 
gifts  and  graces,  that  made  these  men  prophets  and 
teachers,  and  no  act  of  human  appointment  or  ordina- 
tion. And  it  was  these  gifts  in  them,  and  not  any  pre- 
vious ordination,  which  marked  them  as  the  instru- 
ments of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  sealing,  marking,  setting 
apart,  ordaining,  if  you  please,  the  two  ministers  of 
Christ,  Barnabas  and  Saul,  for  the  work  to  which  God 
had  called  them. 


THE  CASE  OF  APOLLOS  CONSIDERED,  BEING  BY  ITSELF  ALONE 
A  KEFUTATION  OF  THE  ASSUMPTIONS  OF  EPISCOPACY. 

There  is  one  passage  more,  of  sufficient  importance 
in  our  argument  to  note  at  length,  and  that  contains 


S2  FOURTHLECTURE. 

the  history  of  Apollos,  a  minister  of  Christ  without 
any  ordination  by  any  other  ministers,  indeed,  without 
any  ordination  whatever,  but  ranked  by  Paul  himself 
as  being  as  much  a  minister  as  he  was.  The  passage 
is  in  Acts  xviii.  24 — 28,  compared  whh  Acts  xix.  1, 
and  I.  Corinthians  iii.  5.  Apollos  was  an  eloquent 
Jew  of  Alexandria,  a  disciple  of  John  the  Baptist, 
mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  and  though  only  partially  in- 
structed in  the  way  of  the  Lord,  yet  a  fervent,  diligent, 
powerful  preacher.  He  certainly  had  never  met  any 
one  of  the  Apostles,  for  he  knew  nothing  but  the  bap- 
tism of  John  ;  he  was  without  ordination,  for  not  a 
single  minister  of  Christ  had  met  him,  until  he  came 
to  Ephesus,  where  Paul  had  left  Aquila,  likewise  a 
Jew,  with  his  wife  Priscilla,  who  afterwards  had  a 
church  in  their  house  in  Rome.  The  moment  Apollos 
came  to  Ephesus,  he  began  to  teach  in  the  synagogues; 
and  then  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  having  listened  to  him 
and  noted  his  fervid  eloquence,  took  him,  and  ex- 
pounded unto  him  the  way  of  God  moie  perfectly. 
This,  manifestly,  was  the  only  approximation  to  an 
ordination,  that  this  man  ever  had,  this  exposition  and 
instruction  by  the  tent-maker  Aquila  and  his  wife. 
But  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  exercised 
his  gifts  for  the  edification  of  believers.  And  when  he 
was  disposed  to  pass  into  Achaia,  the  brethren  wrote 
(the  brethren,  mark  you,  and  no  bishops),  exhorting 
the  disciples  to  receive  him  ;  that  is,  the  Corinthian 
disciples,  Paul  having  recently  spent  a  year  and  a  half 
in  Corinth,  so  that  there  were  many  believers.  To 
Corinth,  therefore,  Apollos  came,  and  helped  the 
brethren  much,  which  had  believed  through  grace,  for 


SOPHISM     FOURTH.  83 

he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  and  that   pubUcly, 
showing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ. 

Now  here,  clearly,  was  a  distinguished  minister  of 
Christ  without  ordination.  He  knew  nothing  of  the 
apostolical  succession ;  he  did  not  even  know  a  single 
apostle ;  no  prelatical  hand  had  been  laid  upon  him. 
Poor  man  !  He  was  out  of  the  line  of  the  succession, 
and  yet  a  powerful  minister  of  Jesus  Christ !  But  per- 
haps some  one  may  ask,  How  do  you  know  but  that 
Paul  himself  may  have  ordained  Apollos  ?  And  here 
our  argument  is  perfect,  and  the  refutation  of  the 
episcopal  hypothesis,  with  its  arrogant  assumption, 
complete  and  entire  ;  for  Paul  calls  Apollos  a  minister 
of  Christ  before  he  had  even  seen  or  known  him,  calls 
him  a  minister  at  the  time  when,  after  the  instructions 
he  received  from  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  he  passed  over 
into  Corinth  and  preached  Christ  there.  Referring 
to  that  very  preaching  of  Apollos  in  Corinth,  which 
under  God  had  produced  much  fruit  in  men  converted, 
Paul  asks.  Who  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  minis- 
ters, by  whom  ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to 
every  man  1 

Now  a  more  triumphant  refutation  of  the  absurd  dogma 
of  the  apostolical  succession  or  ordination  could  not  be 
conceived  than  this,  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. For  here  is  a  man,  whom  Paul  declares  to  be,  like 
himself,  a  minister  of  Christ,  concerning  whom  we  do 
really  know  that  he  never  received  ordination  at  all, 
much  less  from  any  apostle,  or  any  man  or  men  ordained 
by  an  apostle.  Yet  he  was  as  much  a  minister  of  Christ 
as  Paul  was,  and  if  any  church  had  chosen  him  as  one  of 
their  bishops  or  elders,  it  would  have  needed  no  other  ap- 


84  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

pointraent  for  his  ordination ;  this  appointment  itself  was 
an  ordination.  There  might  have  been,  and  there  might 
not  have  been,  after  it, in  concurrence  with  it, prayer  and 
fasting  on  the  part  of  the  presbytery ;  but  the  appoint- 
ment would  have  been  the  ordination,  for  ordination' 
means  appointment,  nothing  else  ;  and  Apollos,  being 
a  minister  of  Christ  before  such  appointment  or  ordina- 
tion, could  not  have  been  any  more  a  minister  of  Christ 
after  such  appointment  or  ordination.  If,  in  token 
and  recognitio-n  of  such  appointment,  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery  had  been  laid  upon  him,  it  could  not  have 
been  for  the  conveyance  af  any  ministerial  gifts  or 
qualifications,  for  he  had  them  all  before,  as  completely 
as  Paul  himself.  Nor  can  it  be  shown  from  any 
passage  \vhatever,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  or  any 
other  persons,  in  appointing  or  ordaining  elders  in  the 
churches,  ever  laid  hands  upon  them.  There  is  not  a 
solitary  instance,  in  which  this  ceremony  is  mentioned 
as  accompanying  the  ordination  of  elders.  And  cer- 
tainly when  pastors  are  ordained  now,  the  laying  on  of 
hands  cannot  be  shown  to  have  anything  essential  in 
it  whatever.  It  conveys  nothing,  for  the  gift  of  mira- 
cles does  not  follow  it ;  and  the  converting  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  not  conveyed  with  it,  nor  ever  was,  nor 
ever  will  be.  In  the  time  of  the  Apostles..it  certainly 
conve}^:!  not  the  right  or  privilege  of  preaching  the 
gospel,  for  this  was  conceded  without  it ;  and  from  the 
12th,  13ih  and  14lh  chapters  of  the  first  epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  it  is  clear  beyond  all  contradic- 
tion, that  the  members  of  the  church  indiscriminately 
preached  and  spake  with  tongues.  *'  Ye  may  all 
prophesy  one  by  one,  that  all  may  learn,  and  all  be 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCHES.       85 

comforted.   Wherefore,  brethren,  covet  not  to  prophesy, 
and  forbid  not  to  speak  with  tongues." 

These  facts,  now  reasoned  from,  give  no  scope 
whatever  to  that  wildness  of  modern  radicalism,  which 
would  break  down  the  distinctions  between  the  minis- 
try and  the  church  of  Christ.  I  am  simply  showing, 
from  the  way  in  which  the  primitive  churches  of  Christ 
arose,  and  from  the  incontrovertible  fact  that  there 
were  preachers  of  the  gospel,  admitted  and  acknow- 
ledged as  such,  without  ordination  by  the  Apostles,  the 
absurdity,  nay,  the  impossibility  of  the  assumed  apos- 
tolical succession,  and  of  the  connected  assumption  that 
there  can  be  no  church  without  a  bishop.  The  order 
of  the  ministry  being  established  by  Christ,  no  man 
may,  in  reckless  presumption  and  disregard  of  appoint- 
ed forms  and  requisite  qualifications,  rush  into  it ;  and 
there  is  a  wide  distinction  between  preaching  the  gos- 
pel, and  being  made  by  the  Holy  Ghost  the  overseer 
or  bishop  of  a  particular  church.  Whatever  forms  are 
laid  down  in  the  gospel  are  to  be  sacredly  adhered  to; 
nor  can  any  man,  unauthorized,  assume  to  himself  the 
dignity,  the  privileges,  or  the  office  of  a  minister  of 
Christ. 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCHES  AP- 
PLIED TO  TEST  THE  DOGMA,  NO  CHURCH  WITHOUT  A 
BISHOP. 

There  is  one  other  form,  of  very  great  powder,  in  which 
we  may  state  our  argument,  occasioned  by  the  asser- 
tion of  the  prelatists,  founded  on  the  sophisms  which  I 
have   endeavored  to   expose,  that   there   can  be   no 


86  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

church  without  a  bishop,  meaning  a  prela'ical  or  dio- 
cesan bishop,  the  oyster,  and  not  the  pearl.  The  as- 
sertion is  most  recklessly  and  inadvertently  unrestrict- 
ed, so  that  it  runs  back  to  the  earliest  period  of  the 
Christian  dispensation.  Now  there  are  none  but  must 
admit  that  what  was  a  church  then  may  be  a  church 
now;  and  therefore  if  we  could  find  but  one  single 
church  in  the  New  Testament  without  a  bishop,  yet 
recognized  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  church,  this  would 
be  fatal  to  the  assertion  and  assumption  of  prelatical 
episcopacy.  To  determine  this  matter  we  must  turn  to 
the  New  Testament,  and  examine  the  constitution  of 
the  churches  there. 


THE  CHURCH  AT  JERUSALEM. 

Take  then,  first  of  all,  the  church  at  Jerusalem. 
Take  it  at  the  first  moment  in  which  it  is  named.  Acts 
ii.  47,  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such  as 
should  be  saved.  There  was,  at  this  time,  no  prece- 
dence among  the  Apostles ;  no  officers  had  been  ap- 
pointed, not  even  elders  ;  yet  the  Spirit  of  God  names 
the  assembly  of  believers  at  Jerusalem  the  Church. 
Now,  the  most  unflinching,  reckless  advocate  of  dio- 
cesan episcopacy  will  hardly  assert  that' at  this  time 
this  church  had  a  diocesan  bishop.  It  had  the  twelve 
Apostles  to  take  care  of  it,  but  no  bishop.  Was  it  a 
church,  or  was  it  not  ?  Who  was  the  bishop  of  that 
diocese  ?  W^here,  how,  and  by  whom  was  he  ordain- 
ed ?  The  idle  dream  that  James  may  have  been  a  dio- 
cesan bishop,  is  so  perfectly  gratuitous,  and  without 
all  proof,  that  it  deserves  not  to  be  noticed.      I  might 


NEW     TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  87 

as  appropriately  dream  that  Barnabas  or  Silas,  "  chief 
men  among  the  brethren"  was  my  lord  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  Peter,  James,  or  John.  If  this  system  is  to 
be  enforced  upon  the  churches,  at  the  peril  of  their 
excommunication,  you  must  tell  us  where,  when,  and 
how  it  arose,  you  must  give  us  texts  of  Scripture  for 
it,  and  show  us  diocesan  bishops  in  the  earliest  consti- 
tution of  the  Christian  churches.  Otherwise,  w-hen  w^e 
find  the  Holy  Spirit  declaring  that  to  be  a  church  over 
which  it  is  demonstrable  and  indisputable  that  there 
was  no  such  governor  as  a  diocesan  bishop,  we  must 
take  the  Holy  Spirit  for  our  guide,  and  the  Bible  for 
our  authority,  and  no  episcopal  assumptions  or  tra- 
ditions. 

Take  this  same  church  at  a  later  period,  Acts  xv. 
4.  "  And  when  they  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  they 
were  received  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Apostles  and 
ciders,  and  they  declared  all  things  that  God  had  done 
with  them."  In  this  advanced  period  we  find,  besides 
Apostles,  elders  in  this  church,  but  still,  no  bishop,  nor 
in  any  intermediate  portion  of  the  history  any  intima- 
tion of  the  creation  of  such  an  office,  or  the  appoint- 
ment of  such  an  officer.  If  any  such  w^ere  constituted, 
show  us  the  text,  point  us  to  the  explicit  record,  for 
such,  inasmuch  as  you  make  it  a  matter  of  life  or  death, 
you  must  do.  Evolve  your  proof.  Alas,  it  will  not 
come ;  the  church,  and  the  Apostles,  and  elders,  are 
all  the  shape  you  can  possibly  make  it  assume.  Was 
this  a  church,  or  was  it  not  ?  It  had  no  bishop.  Yet 
the  Holy  Spirit  calls  it  a  church.     Whom  shall  we  be- 


8S  FOURTHLECTURE. 

lieve,  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  traditions  and  assump- 
tions of  diocesan  ejiiscopacy  ? 

THE  CHURCH  AT  CESAREA. 

Take  next,  if  you  please,  the  church  at  Cesarea. 
Compare  the  passages  in  which  either  that  church  is 
named,  or  any  hints  are  given  how  it  might  have  come 
into  being.  Acts  viii.  40,  Philip  stopping  at  Cesa- 
rea in  his  course  of  preaching  ;  Acts  xviii.  22,  Paul, 
landing  at  Cesarea,  and  saluting  the  church ;  Acts 
xxi.  8;  Philip,  the  Evangelist,  at  Cesarea,  as  at  the 
first.  Here,  again,  is  a  church  without  a  bishop. 
You  cannot  find  an  intimation  of  any  such  officer,  of 
any  such  office.  If  you  assume  or  assert  that  there 
was,  show  us  the  proof;  prove  it  with  as  much  ex- 
plicitness  as  your  own  unchurching  dogma  expresses, 
or  you  are  convicted  as  arrogant  impostors.  Here  is  a 
church  without  a  bishop,  called  of  God  a  church. 
Was  it  a  church,  or  was  it  not  ? 

Take  the  church  at  Cenchrea ;  Rom.  xvi.  1.  Take 
the  churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia  ;  Acts  xv.  41.  Paul 
visiting  them  and  confirming  their  faith.  They  had  no 
bishop.  Were  they  churches,  or  were  they  not  ?  The 
Holy  Spirit  calleth  them  churches.  Take  the  churches 
of  Galatia;  1  Cor.  xvi.  1,  Paul's  notice  of  them. 
They  had  no  bishop.  Yet  the  Word  of  God  calls 
them  churches.  Were  they  churches,  or  were  they 
not  ? 

THE  CHURCH  AT  CORLNTH. 

Take  the    church  of  the   Corinthians.     Was  that 


NEW     TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  89 

also  a  church,  or  was  it  not  ?  Paul  regards  it  as  a 
church,  addresses  it  as  such  ;  yet  it  had  no  bishop.  The 
proof  in  regard  to  this  particular  church  is  over- 
whelming ;  for  we  have  an  epistle  from  Clemens  Ro- 
manus  to  the  Church  at  Corinth,  in  which  there  is  de- 
monstration that  their  government  was,  as  in  the 
Church  at  Ephesus,  by  bishops  or  elders,  and  that  they 
had  no  diocesan  bishop.  The  matter  is  so  evident,  that 
episcopal  historians  themselves  argue  that  it  is  plain 
that  the  episcopal  government  was  not  established  at 
Corinth.  Now,  was  this  a  church,  or  was  it  not  ? 
Paul's  own  superscription  to  his  Epistle  is  this.  Unto 
the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth.  It  is  acknow- 
ledged that  this  was  a  church  without  a  bishop.  Yet 
the  insolent  dogma,  No  bishop,  no  church,  gives  the 
lie  to  the  declaration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regard  to 
it.  Shall  we  believe  our  inspired  Apostle,  or  the  tradi- 
tions, assumptions,  and  unchurching  dogmas  of  epis- 
copacy. 

THE  CHURCH  AT  EPHESUS. 

Just  so,  take  the  church  at  Ephesus,  Acts  xx.  17, 
and  read  Paul's  final  farewell  exhortation  to  the  elders 
of  that  church.  That  it  was  a  church  without  a  bishop 
is  as  clear  from  Paul's  speech,  as  that  it  was  a  church 
with  elders,  as  that  it  was  a  church  at  all.  Not  an  in- 
dividual is  alluded  to  who  had  any  authority  w^hatever 
over  the  church,  save  its  elders,  and  to  them  Paul  com- 
mitted THE  SUPREME  CHARGE.  It  was  a  church  without 
a  bishop.  Was  it  a  church,  or  was  it  not  ?  The  epis- 
copal assumption  saith  not.  Shall  we  believe  the  epis- 
copal assumption,  or  the  declaration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  1 


90  FOURTHLECTURE. 


THE  CHURCH  AT  ANTIOCH. 

Once  more,  take  the  church  at  Antioch,  Acts  xii. 
26.  See  how  it  arose,  Acts  xi.  19,  20,  21.  There 
was,  first,  the  persecution  on  the  death  of  Stephen, 
scattering  the  church  which  was  at  Jerusalem,  to 
preach  the  word.  Some  of  these  members  of  the 
church,  thus  scattered  abroad  preaching,  were  men  of 
Cyprus  and  Cyrene,  who  came  as  far  as  Antioch,  and 
preached  to  the  Grecians  there.  The  hand  of  the  Lord 
was  with  them,  and  many  beheved.  Then  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  having  heard  of  this ;  the  church,  mark 
you,  and  no  bishop ;  sent  Barnabas,  and  he  came  to 
Antioch ;  and  then  Barnabas  went  to  Tarsus,  and  found 
Saul,  and  brought  him  to  Antioch  ;  and  "  a  whole  year 
they  assembled  themselves  with  the  church."  Was 
it  a  church,  or  was  it  not  7  You  cannot  here  take  re- 
fuge in  the  supposition  that  either  Barnabas  or  Saul 
were  bishops  of  this  diocese ;  for  the  inspired  record 
saith,  "  There  were  in  the  church  at  Antioch  certain 
prophets  and  teachers,  among  whom  were  Barnabas 
and  Saul."  They  were,  then,  neither  of  them  bishops, 
and  this  church  at  Antioch  was  a  church  without  a 
bishop.  What  becomes  of  the  episcopal  assumption 
here  ?  Will  the  dogma.  No  church  without  a  bishop, 
stand  against  this  express  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

At  an  after  visit,  Paul  and  Barnabas,  separated  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  for  this  purpose,  ordained  elders  in 
every  church.  Take  then  the  churches,  when  these 
two  men  came,  ordaining  elders  in  them.  Were  they 
churches,  or  were  they  not  ?     So  far  from  having  a 


NEW     TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  91 

diocesan  bishop,  they,  as  yet,  had  not  even  elders. 
Were  they  churches,  or  were  they  not  ?  You  may, 
perhi^ps,  answer,  that  the  government  had  not  yet  been 
organized.  Aye,  that  is  the  very  point.  The  passage 
shows,  to  demonstration,  that  even  without  such  organ- 
ization they  were  churches  of  Christ.  If  I  were  to 
hand  you  a  basket  of  apples,  and  tell  you  to  cut  these 
apples  into  exact  halves,  and  then  put  an  artificial  stem 
into  each  of  the  halves,  and  some  one  should  tell  you 
that  they  were  not  apples  till  they  were  thus  halved 
and  stemmed,  what  should  you  think  of  such  an  argu- 
ment ?  The  churches  were  churches  before  Barnabas 
and  Saul  visited  them,  just  as  much  as  they  were  after- 
wards. Yet,  neither  before  nor  after,  had  they  any  dio- 
cesan bishop.  If  they  had  had  a  bishop,  it  would  have 
been  a  curious  affair  for  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  take  no 
more  notice  of  him  than  if  he  had  been  a  wooden  bench 
in  the  synagogue.  Methinks,  if  Bishop  Mcllvaine 
and  Bishop  Chase  should  come  into  the  diocese  of  New 
York,  and  proceed  to  ordaining  elders  in  every  church, 
they  would  be  very  likely  to  hear  from  Bishop  Onder- 
donk.  And  so,  if  Bishop  Barnabas  and  Bishop  Paul 
came  into  the  diocese  of  Bishop  Diotrephes  in  Antioch, 
and  without  so  much  as  a  notice  of  his  existence,  pro- 
ceeded to  the  work  of  appointing  elders  in  the  churches, 
they  would  very  likely  have  heard  from  Bishop  Dio- 
trephes, and  we  should  have  heard  from  him  also. 
There  were  prophets,  teachers,  and  elders  in  Antioch, 
but  no  diocesan  bishops  ;  just  as  the  disciples  were  first 
called  Christians  in  Antioch,  but  not  churchmen. 

I  press  this  point  in  reference  to  the  church  in  Anti- 
och.    Before  Barnabas  and  Saul  appointed  elders,  was 


92  FOURTHLECTURE. 

that  a  church,  or  was  it  not  1  If  it  was,  it  was  a  church 
without  a  bishop,  for  not  even  elders  had  been  appoint- 
ed, and  a  prelatical  bishop  was  a  creation  of  ecclesias- 
tical ambition  not  yet  dreamed  of.  If  it  was  not,  did 
it  become  a  church  on  the  appointment  of  elders  1  Then 
alsi  it  was  a  church  without  a  bishop,  for  neither  of 
these  elders  was  ordained  bishop,  and  neither  Barnabas 
nor  Saul  had  any  diocese  in  those  parts,  but  were  sim- 
ple messengers  from  the  church  in  Jerusalem. 

Here  then  we  set  the  issue.  It  is  declared  in  the 
Word  of  God,  that  Barnabas  and  Saul  appointed  elders 
in  every  church.  It  is  not  said,  appointed  elders  to 
make  or  gather  a  church,  but,  appointed  elders  in  every 
church  ;  appointed  elders  in  what  already  was  a  church. 
The  Holy  Ghost  then  recognizes  a  church  without  a 
bishop,  and  before  the  appointment  of  elders.  Let, 
then,  any  candid  Episcopalian  answer  the  question, 
Was  this  a  church,  or  was  it  not  ?  If  you  say  it  was 
not,  you  deny  the  record  that  God  has  given,  and 
charge  falsehood  on  the  scriptures.  Moreover,  if  it 
was  not,  then,  of  course,  on  your  own  theory  it  had  no 
bishop.  If  you  say  it  was,  then  you  convict  your  own 
assumption,  your  own  dogma,  of  falsehood.  Or  again, 
if  you  say  it  was  not,  but  became  a  church  on  the  ap- 
pointment of  elders,  you  again  convict  your  QW'n  the- 
ory of  falsehood,  acknowledging  a  church  to  be  a  church 
without  a  bishop.  The  dilemma  is  inextricable,  the 
case  is  an  entire  demonstration. 

After  this  case  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  sent  by  the 
Brethren  on  a  great  question  to  Jerusalem.  And  when 
they  were  come,  they  were  received  of  the  Church  and 
of  the  Apostles,  and  Elders.    Was  it  a  church  by  itself. 


NEW     TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  93 

or  was  it  not  ?  If  all  the  Apostles  and  elders  had  died 
at  once,  it  would  still  have  remained  a  church.  "  It 
pleased  the  Apostles  and  elders,  with  the  whole 
church."  Where  was  the  bishop  ?  "Who  was  he  7 
What  was  his  office  1  Apostles,  prophets,  teachers, 
pastors,  evangelists,  elders,  are  mentioned  as  existing 
and  officiating  in  their  respective  places  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  apostolic  church,  hut  never  such  a  creature 
as  a  diocesan  bishop.  You  can  find  no  trace  of  him 
whatever  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  for  more  than  two 
hundred  years  can  you  find  any  trace  of  him  at  all  in 
the  history  of  Christianity.  On  the  hypothesis  that 
there  were  diocesan  bishops  in  the  New  Testament 
churches,  it  is  a  prodigious  problem  for  the  advocates 
of  episcopacy  to  solve,  why  for  the  two  first  centuries 
of  the  Christian  church  the  office  and  the  officer  should 
be  entirely  discontinued.  The  dogrna,no  church  with- 
out a  bishop,  would  unchurch  all  the  churches  of  the 
first  two  hundred  years,  as  well  as  the  non-episcopal 
churches  of  the  last  three  hundred. 


PRELATICAL  MODE  OF  CREATING  AN  APOSTLE. 

One  of  the  most  amusing  specimens  of  the  mate- 
rials, out  of  which  the  fabric  of  Episcopacy  is  con- 
structed by  its  advocates,  is  to  be  found  in  their  consecra- 
tion of  Epaphroditus  as  an  apostle  !  They  do  this,  in 
order  to  strain  out  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 
their  three  orders  in  the  ministry.  Most  unfortunately 
St.  Paul  superscribes  that  epistle.  To  all  the  saints  at 
Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons,  but  says  not  a 
word  of  any  apostle,  or  diocesan  bishop.     To  get  over 


94  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

this  difficulty,  they  say,  that  Paul  states  in  the  course 
of  the  Epistle  that  Epaphrodltus  was  the  Apostle  of 
that  church ;  thus,  in  chap.  ii.  25,  "  Yet  I  supposed  it 
necessary  to  send  to  you  Epaphroditus  my  brother  and 
companion  in  labor,  but  your  messenger,  and  he  that 
ministered  to  my  wants."  To  make  out  the  Apostle 
here,  it  is  necessary  first  to  change  the  translation  of 
the  word  messenger,  and  make  it  your  Apostle.  Our 
English  translators,  not  having  the  fear  of  a  church 
without  a  bishop  before  their  eyes,  and  having  a  good 
common  sense  in  their  understanding,  have  given  it  the 
right  meaning,  messenger,  the  only  meaning,  which,  in 
connection  with  the  context,  it  will  bear.  For,  by 
turning  to  chap.  iv.  18,  you  read  thus  :  "  But  I  have 
all,  and  abound :  I  am  full,  having  received  of  Epa- 
phroditus the  things  which  ivere  sent  from  you,  an  odor 
of  a  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing 
to  God."  Epaphroditus,  it  is  clear,  was  a  messenger 
from  the  church  of  the  Philippians  to  Paul,  to  carry  to 
him  the  fruits  of  their  benevolence  ;  and  this  verse  ex- 
plains perfectly  the  sense  in  which  the  word  messenger 
must  be  taken  in  the  former  verse,  and  makes  that 
sense,  and  none  other,  necessary.  But  the  advocates 
of  diocesan  episcopacy  have  seized  this  benevolent 
errand  of  Epaphroditus,  and  exalted  hirn  by  means  of 
it  into  the  apostleship  !  They  have  smelled  in  Epaphro- 
ditus' errand  the  sweet  smell  of  a  diocesan  bishop,  the 
fragrance  of  an  apostolical  diploma. 

But  who  ever  heard  of  the  Apostle  of  a  particular 
church,  or  where  now  is  the  successor  of  such  an 
officer?  According  to  this  train  of  argument  the 
agents  and  treasurers  of  our  modern  benevolent  societies 


NEW     TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  95 

are  apostles.  And  if  because  the  word  aTioarolo;  is 
here  used,  you  therefore  make  Epaphroditus  an  apostle 
like  Paul,  then,  because  the  word  dtaxovo;  is  used  with 
regard  to  our  Saviour,  it  makes  him,  by  the  same  argu- 
ment, nothing  but  a  deacon.  It  is  impossible  fully  to 
characterize  the  weakness  and  puerility  of  such  pre- 
tended arguments.  Arguments  they  are  not,  and  they 
have  not  ingenuity  enough  to  be  dignified  with  the 
name  of  sophistry,  which  generally  possesses  some 
shadow  of  consistency  and  plausibility. 

It  ought  to  be  added  that  we  have  also  an  epistle 
from  Polycarp  (living  next  after  the  Apostles)  to  the 
same  church  at  Philippi,  in  which,  just  as  in  Paul's 
Epistle,  Polycarp  speaks  of  two  officers  only,  the  pres- 
byters and  deacons,  and  gives  not  the  most  distant  allu- 
sion to  such  a  creature  as  a  diocesan  bishop,  not  the 
slightest  hint  of  the  existence  of  any  other  officer  than 
presbyters  and  deacons.  The  idea  of  Bishop  Epa- 
phroditus seems  not  to  have  crossed  Polycarp's  mind  ; 
and  as  the  church  at  Philippi  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
sending  any  messenger  with  gifts  to  him,  as  they  had 
been  to  Paul,  there  is  no  one  in  his  epistle,  whom  the 
apostolical  successionists  can  conveniently  Apostolicise; 
an  omission  perfectly  unaccountable  on  their  theory. 
And  this  church  at  Philippi  is  the  only  one  in  which 
they  even  attempt  to  show  their  three  orders,  doing  it 
in  this  instance,  by  the  help  of  Epaphroditus,  changing 
the  benevolent  scrip,  which  he  bore  to  Paul,  into  an 
apostolical  diploma  for  himself;  the  odor  of  his  bene- 
volence, into  the  insignia  of  his  own  apostleship. 

Let  us  suppose  that  Epaphroditus  himself  had  done 
this  J  that  on  the  ground  of  his  having  this  errand  to 


96  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

Paul  from  the  church  of  the  Philippians,  and  having 
this  letter  of  their  benevolence  superscribed  "  hy  our 
messengp-r,  nnoaiolog^  Epaphroditus,"  he  had  claimed  for 
himself,  as  is  now  in  some  quarters,  on  the  same 
ground,  claimed  for  him,  the  rank  and  authority  of  an 
apostle.  What  would  have  been  his  reception  by 
Paul  1  "  Why,"  says  Epaphroditus,  "  I  am  an  apos- 
tle !"  "  You  an  apostle  ?"  says  Paul,  "  I  never  heard 
of  it  before.  When  did  you  become  one  ?  W^ho  seal- 
ed you  for  this  office  1  Who  gave  you  this  commis- 
sion ?  Where  are  the  signs  of  your  apostleship  1 
W^here  are  your  miracles  and  proofs  of  authority  1" 
"  Why,"  says  Epaphroditus,  "  in  this  letter  from  the 
Philippians.  Am  I  not  called  their  anocrroXog  ?  And 
have  I  not  brought  to  you  from  them  a  large  supply 
of  money  and  garments  ?  And  is  not  this  the  work 
of  an  apostle?  The  seal  of  mine  apostleship  is  this 
errand  in  the  Lord  ;  and  let  me  tell  you,  Master  Paul, 
every  good  advocate  of  the  Episcopacy  will  receive  it 
as  such  ;  and  though  you  may  now  reject  my  claims, 
yet  the  time  will  come,  when,  on  account  cf  this  very 
errand,  my  name  shall  be  placed  with  yours,  amidst 
the  dignitaries  of  episcopal  authority,  in  the  roll  of 
the  Apostles  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  .Jesus  Christ." 

The  absurdity  of  some  things  is  better  developed  by 
ridicule  than  in  any  other  way.  I  may,  therefore,  be 
pardoned  the  introduction  of  this  dialogue  into  a  grave 
argument;  for  it  is  what  might  very  likely  have  taken 
place,  had  Epaphroditus  been  so  vain  a  fool  as  to 
argue  for  himself  in  the  way  the  prelatical  succession- 
ists  have  argued  for  him. 


NEW      TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  97 


ASSUMPTION    OF    THE    APOSTLESHIP    OF     EAKNABAS     TESTED 
BY    THE    WORD    OF    GOD. 

The  same  career  of  assumption  and  supposition  in 
place  of  proof  sets  clown  also  the  name  of  Barnabas 
among  the  Apostles,  the  object  being  to  gain  some 
ground  of  authority  for  the  hypothesis  that  the  apos- 
tolic dignity  was  continued  by  succession,  and  has 
passed,  in  a  way  of  which  the  successionists  do  not 
condescend  to  inform  us,  into  the  lordship  of  the 
order  of  diocesan  bishops.  The  men  w^ho  reason  thus 
must  have  been  totally  unaccustomed  to  any  such 
searching  and  comparison  of  scripture,  as  would,  in  the 
way  of  the  admirable  argument  in  the  Horae  Paulinas, 
enable  them  to  detect  their  owm  errors.  Let  us  test 
this  assertion  of  Barnabas  being  an  apostle  in  this 
way.  You  have  only  to  compare  Acts  ix.  26, 27,  w^ith 
Galatians  i.  18,  19,  and  you  will  find  explicit  proof 
amounting,  in  fact,  to  an  express  declaration  of  Paul, 
that  Barnabas  was  not  an  apostle.  The  two  passages 
refer,  as  will  be  seen,  to  the  same  visit  of  Paul  to  Jeru- 
salem from  Damascus.  In  the  one  of  these  passap^es 
Paul  declares  that  in  that  visit  he  saw  none  of  the 
Apostles  save  Peter  and  James.  From  the  other 
passage  it  is  manifest  that  he  did  see  Barnabas,  who 
was  then  "  of  note  among  the  Apostles,"  and  who, 
indeed,  himself  introduced  Paul  to  those  apostles  whom 
he  did  see.  Consequently  the  case  is  clear  that  Bar- 
nabas w^as  not  an  apostle.  Let  us  put  the  two  passages 
in  juxta-position.  The  first  reads  thus  :  "  And  when 
Saul  was  come  to  Jerusalem,  he  essayed  to  join  him- 


98  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

self  to  the  disciples :  but  they  were  all  afraid  of  him, 
and  believed  not  that  he  was  a  disciple.  But  Barnabas 
took  him,  and  brought  him  to  the  Apostles,  and  de- 
clared unto  them  how  he  had  seen  the  Lord  in  the 
way,  and  that  he  had  spoken  to  him,  and  how  he 
had  preached  boldly  at  Damascus  in  the  name  of 
Jesus."  The  second  passage  reads  thus' (Gal.  i.  18, 
19.),  "Then  after  three  years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem 
to  see  Peter,  and  abode  with  him  fifteen  days.  But 
other  of  the  Apostles  saw  I  none,  save  James,  the 
Lord's  brother."  Fourteen  years  after,  Paul  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  again  with  Barnabas,  and  at  this  time, 
and  on  some  other  occasions,  Barnabas  was  entrusted 
with  errands,  which  made  him  a  messenger  of  the 
churches,  much  in  the  same  way  as  Epaphroditus  was 
for  the  church  of  the  Philippians.  But  if  errands  of 
responsibility  and  trust  constituted  apostles,  then  were 
Judas  and  Silas,  and  many  others,  "  our  brethren,  the 
messengers  of  the  churches"  (2  Cor.  viii.  8, 23),  apos- 
tles also. 

SECTARIAN  PREJUDICE  MUST  BE    LAID    ASIDE    IN  ORDER    TO 
APPEAL  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  an  appeal  to  the  New  Testament,  noman  can  be 
firm  and  fearless,  who  does  not  divest  himself  of  sec- 
tarian prejudices,  before  he  enters  that  sacred  enclo- 
sure. If  he  comes  there  expecting  to  find  his  own 
ism,  you  need  not  look  to  him  for  frankness  and  free- 
dom of  investigation.  He  will  torture  some  passages, 
he  will  force  others,  he  will  add  to  others,  he  will  take 
nothing  in  its  plain  and  simple  meaning.     And  if  the 


NEW     TESTAMENT     CHURCHES.  99 

plain  and  simple  meaning  be  against  him,  he  will  keep 
away  as  much  as  possible  from  the  open  field  of  truth, 
he  will  run  to  the  Fathers,  he  will  imhosk,  as  Milton 
says,  and  you  seek  in  vain  to  draw  him  from  the  wilder- 
ness of  the  Fathers  into  the  simplicity  of  the  scrip- 
tures. The  adherents  of  an  ecclesiastical  system  which, 
like  that  of  episcopacy,  came  out  of  Romanism,  and 
not  out  of  the  primitive  apostolic  Christianity,  will  be 
especially  fond  of  browsing  in  those  same  patristical 
and  traditionary  pastures,  where  Romanism  has  grown 
corpulent.  The  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament 
affords  too  spare  a  diet  for  such  a  scheme.  The 
Christianity  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  one  of  exclu- 
sive isms ;  and  hence,  the  more  arrogantly  any  sect 
claims  to  be,  of  divine  right,  the  only  true  church,  the 
less  likely  it  is  to  be  the  true  church.  Hence,  while 
in  pursuing  the  argument  through  the  New  Testament 
you  have  to  confess  that,  strictly  speaking,  Congrega- 
tionalism is  not  there  as  a  model,  inasmuch  as  it  has 
no  elders ;  nor  Independency,  because  of  the  same  omis- 
sion ;  nor  Presbyterianism,  because  its  elders  are  not 
bishops ;  least  of  all  is  Episcopalianism  to  be  found 
there,  inasmuch  as  it  has  three  or  more  orders  in  the 
ministry,  while  the  New  Testament  churches  have  only 
one  ;  and  its  government  excludes  elders,  while  in  the 
New  Testament  churches  these  invariably  were  the 
overseers  of  the  flock.  And  yet,  while  the  system  of 
Episcopalianism  is  the  widest  in  its  departure  from  the 
New  Testament  model,  it  is  the  most  sectarian,  the 
most  exclusive,  the  most  bigoted  of  all  modern  denomi- 
nations. 

It  is  the  only  one  of  all   modern   denominations, 


100  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

that  refuses  to  admit  other  ministers  of  Christ  into  ils 
pulpits ;  and  until  some  man  shall  be  found  in  its  ranks 
of  sufficient  firmness  to  resist  this  exclusiveness,  the  re- 
proach of  priority  in  bigotry  must  rest  upon  it.  If  Dr. 
Stone  or  Dr.  Milnor  should  rise  superior  to  this  spirit, 
and  in  proof  of  it  should  say  to  Dr.  Spring  or  Dr. 
Skinner,  I  invite  you,  as  a  brother  minister  of  Christ,  to 
a  ministerial  exchange  of  our  mutual  pulpit  services 
on  the  Sabbath,  that  would  be  a  happy  example  of 
a  truly  catholic  and  not  bigoted  spirit ;  it  would  be  the 
only  successful  positive  denial  of  the  charge  of  bigotry 
and  exclusiveness;  and  it  would  do  more  to  convince 
the  world  that  their  profession  of  the  gospel  is  not 
formalism,  but  spirit  and  power,  than  all  other  mea- 
sures that  could  be  taken.  "For  in  Christ  Jesus 
neither  circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor  uncircum- 
cision,  but  a  new  creature.  And  as  many  as  walk  ac- 
cording to  this  rule,  peace  be  on  them,  and  mercy,  and 
upon  the  Israel  of  God." 

EPISCOPAL  EXCLUSIVENESS  PASSING  INTO  HOSTILITY  AGAINST 
MISSIONS  WITHOUT  EPISCOPACY. 

But  at  present,  what  is  the  exhibition  made  to  the 
world  '?  Why,  that  the  form  is  of  more  •  importance 
than  the  spirit;  and  not  content  with  making  this  im- 
pression in  Christian  lands,  it  is  carried  even  among  the 
heathen,  even  into  missionary  operations,  introducing 
there  a  disgraceful,  undermining  rivalry  and  hostility 
against  those  simple-hearted  missionaries  of  the  Cross, 
whose  object  and  business  is  simply  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel, and  not  "  episcopacy,  confirmation,  and  a  liturgy." 


TENDENCY     TO     PAPACY.  101 

The  same  spirit  of  bigotry  which  here  asserts  that  there 
can  be  no  church  without  a  bishop,  denounces,  in 
heathen  lands,  those  who  have  gone  to  carry  the  glad 
tidings  of  the  gospel  without  the  episcopal  ybrw,  as 
schismatical,  unauthorized  intruders  into  the  ministry, 
as  men  who  have  no  right  to  preach,  nor  to  administer 
the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  This  is  melancholy  to 
the  last  degree.  An  episcopal  clergyman  in  Constan- 
tinople said  to  a  young  pious  Armenian,  who  had  been 
converted  by  the  grace  of  Christ  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board, 
"Those  men  (the  American  missionaries)  may  be 
good  men,  but  they  are  no  priests.  I  am  a  priest.  But 
they  are  no  priests,  no  ministers  of  Christ."  And  this 
injurious,  undermining  mode  of  missionary  operations 
is  just  the  legitimate  result  of  the  unchurching  dogma, 
w^hich  in  this  country  has  been  proclaimed  as  the 
foundation  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

Now,  God  forbid  that  we  should  charge  this  spirit 
upon  all  EpiscopaHans.  We  know  that  there  are 
those  who  mourn  over  it.  There  is  also  a  distinction 
between  the  laity  and  the  clergy  in  this  matter ;  and 
there  is  a  portion  of  the  clergy,  who  privately  aban- 
don the  assumptions  of  the  apostolical  succession. 
But  when  will  they  publicly  and  practically  disavow 
and  resist  them  ?  Until  they  do  this,  they  are  partak- 
ers of  the  sinfulness  of  this  exclusive  unchurching 
spirit,  so  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our  Blessed  Saviour. 
Until  they  do  this,  they  uphold  a  system,  which  tends 
to  the  destruction  of  our  religious  liberty. 


102  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

PAPISTICAL  NATURE  OF  THE  APOSTOLICAL  SirCCESSION. 

Episcopallanism  becomes  Popery  in  essence,  when  it 
takes  to  its  bosom  the  Apostohcal  Succession.  Its  priests 
assert  that  everything  is  in  their  hands,  that  baptism  is 
regeneration,  that  there  is  no  regeneration  -without  it, 
and  that  there  is  no  baptism  except  throvgh  a  prelatical 
bishop.  If  you  enter  the  prison  of  such  a  system,  it 
■will  make  you  do  as  it  pleases.  Its  monopoly  cannot 
be  broken.  You  dare  not  go  elsewhere,  for  salvation 
is  only  within  its  walls.  Let  its  rules  be  ever  so  rigid, 
you  are  obliged  to  abide  by  them ;  it  may  tax  you  to 
its  heart's  content,  but  if  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  its 
ordinances,  what  are  you  to  do  ?  It  may  take  away 
all  your  liberties,  but  if  it  holds  the  key  of  your  salva- 
tion, you  are  a  helpless  victim,  and  cannot  stir.  Once 
give  to  the  system  of  Episcopahanism  the  claims  which 
the  apostolical  successionists  are  advancing,  and  you 
have  a  perfect  Spiritual  Despotism,  quite  as  remorseless 
as  Popery  itself. 

Whether  these  odious  pretensions  are  rightly  attri- 
buted to  Episcopalians  as  a  body  in  this  country,  we 
do  not  undertake  to  decide;  but  they  are  the  pre- 
tensions of  those  who  love  the  pre-eminence,  and 
who  possess  it,  to  a  degree,  in  their  conventions,  and  in 
their  Metropohtan  royalties.  And  those  who  do  not 
side  with  these  dignitaries,  will  nevertheless  have  to 
bear  the  reproach  of  such  pretensions,  unless  they 
plainly  disavow  and  resist  them,  and  are  willing  to 
make  some  effort  to  reform  their  church  of  them. 
"Whatever  persons  in  the  church  do  not,  so  far  as  they 
may  be  able,  oppose  these  injurious  maxims  and  prac- 


TENDENCY     TO     PAPACY.  103 

tices,  they  are  themselves  partakers  in  the  ungodliness 
of  that  zeal  which  was  marked  of  the  Apostle  John  in 
the  case  of  "  Diotrephes,  who  loveth  the  pre-eminence, 
and  casteth  us  out  of  the  Church  j"  and  as  such,  Christ 
will  hold  them  responsible;  responsible  for  holding 
with  a  system,  which  denounces  and  insults  the  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  own  body,  responsible  for  sanctioning 
the  course  of  those  who  say  to  the  foot,  Because  thou 
art  not  the  hand,  therefore  thou  art  not  of  the  body ; 
the  course  of  those,  who  thus  are  themselves  true  schis- 
matics, and  are  guilty  of  offending  thousands  of  "  little 
ones  who  believe  in  Christ." 

The  prophecy  of  Christ  in  regard  to  individuals 
causing  offences,  that  it  were  better  if  a  millstone  were 
fastened  to  the  neck  of  a  man  "  who  shall  offend  one 
of  these  little  ones  who  believe  in  me,"  and  he  were 
cast  into  the  sea,  has  been  fulfilled  in  regard  to  those 
systems,  w^hich  in  like  manner  offend  and  persecute 
those  believers  in  Christ,  who  choose  not  their  forms. 
For,  with  this  ambitious,  persecuting  zeal  there  have 
been  connected  two  monstrous  errors,  namely,  that 
baptism  is  regeneration,  and  that  communion  at  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  Christianity  and  Salvation  -,  errors, 
which  will  be  found  at  the  Day  of  Judgment  to  have 
consigned  thousands  upon  thousands,  in  that  Church,  in 
the  security  of  unpardoned  sin,  over  to  its  eternal  con- 
sequences. A  man  may  say,  I  had  rather  a  thousand 
times  be  a  dissenter  in  England,  and  endure  all  the 
chains  and  persecutions,  which  might  be  laid  upon  me, 
than  take  my  seat  at  the  Lord's  table  in  the  Establish- 
ment, as  thousands  are  doing,  w^ith  honors  heaped  upon 
me,  and  the  millstone  about  my  soul  of  a  baptismal  re- 


104  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

generation,  or  a  Eucharistical  salvation,  The  Estab- 
lishment of  England,  in  enshrining  such  errors,  is  all 
the  while  providing  for  herself  the  penal  retributions  of 
God,  for  having  cast  out  and  trampled  under  foot,  not 
only  dissenting  individuals,  but  whole  denominations  of 
Christians.  For,  what  retribution  can  be  more  dread- 
ful, what  millstone  heavier,  what  wrath  worse  to  bear, 
than  that  of  being  discovered  to  have  thrown  the 
weight  of  her  own  worldUness,  magnificence,  and  zeal, 
to  crush  her  own  members,  in  sacramental  Pharisaism, 
down  to  hell ! 


DANGER  TO  OUR   RELIGIOUS  LIBERTIES  FROM    SUCH    EXCLU- 
SIVENESS. 

And  if  there  were  an  Episcopalian  Establishment  in 
this  country,  is  it  not  plain,  from  every  indication,  that 
it  would  follow  the  same  course  '?  It  would  be  a  per- 
secuting Establishment,  most  dangerous  to  the  liberties 
of  our  country.  Even  Bishop  Hopkins,  already,  has 
advised  an  ecclesiastical  censorship ;  and  Bishop 
Onderdonk  has  issued  his  circular,  declaring  that  on 
the  subject  of  supposed  delinquencies  in  the  higher 
clergy,  men  must  forever  hold  their  peace,  unless  they 
are  willing  to  undergo  the  delay,  the  vexation,  the  ex- 
pense, of  a  regular  ecclesiastical  impeachment  and 
trial,  the  canons  of  the  Church  forbidding  a  man  to  say 
one  word  of  critical  opinion  even,  unfavorable  to  the 
line  of  conduct  which  the  ruling  dignitaries  may  think 
proper  to  assume.  If  such  an  ecclesiastical  establish- 
ment should  gain  the  power,  then  let  men  see  to  it, 
that  they  stand  from  before  the  mouth  of  such  cannon. 


RELIGIOUS     LIBERTY.  105 

They  will  sweep  the  freedom  of  opinion  like  the  artil- 
lery of  an  Austrian  despotism. 

There  is  a  tendency,  in  some  minds  among  us,  to  ad- 
mire the  august  display  of  consolidated  unity,  pomp, 
and  order,  in  a  combined  monarchical  and  ecclesiastical 
Establishment  like  that  of  Great  Britain.  Now  we 
make  no  affectation  of  patriotism  or  democracy ;  but 
we  hold  that  loyalty  to  one's  native  country  is  a  virtue ; 
and  if  we  had  been  born  Hottentots,  we  would  shield 
so  far  as  in  us  lay,  our  community  of  huts  from  re- 
proach ;  and  so  far  as  our  judgment  permitted,  we 
would  assert  it  to  be  the  best  community  in  existence. 
This  is  the  filial  principle  of  our  nature,  towards  our 
mother-land.  But,  born  as  we  are  under  a  government 
which,  when  rightly  administered,  is  the  best  in  the 
world,  we  hold  it  as  poor  policy,  as  it  is  want  of  pa- 
triotism, to  be  hankering  after  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt, 
and  praising  the  allied  influences  of  a  monarchical  and 
ecclesiastical  Establishment. 

In  paying,  in  a  former  lecture,  our  tribute  of  admira- 
tion to  the  defenders  of  religious  liberty,  in  persecuting 
ages  of  the  world,  we  ought  not  to  have  passed  by 
without  special  mention  of  gratitude  and  love,  the  great 
and  noble  name  of  Roger  Williams,  of  Rhode  Island. 
Read,  in  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States,  the 
story  of  that  remarkable  man's  adventures  in  the  pa- 
tient pursuit  of  an  asylum  of  perfect  religious  liberty, 
and  you  will  be  constrained  to  acknowledge  that  he 
deserves  to  stand  high  in  the  gratitude  of  his  country- 
men. You  will  be  ready  to  admit  the  justice  of  Gov- 
ernor Hopkins'  declaration,  that  "  Roger  Williams 
justly  claims  the  honor  of  having  been  the  first  legisla- 


106  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

tor  in  the  world,  in  its  later  ages,  who  fully  and  effect- 
ually provided  for  and  established  a  full,  free,  and  ab- 
solute liberty  of  conscience."  It  was  upon  such  men's 
minds,  as  upon  the  world's  mountain  summits,  that  the 
light  of  that  rising  sun  of  liberty  first  feil,  which  was 
to  fill  the  vales  with  its  unclouded  purity.  And  is  it 
not  most  remarkable,  that  out  of  the  fires  of  persecu- 
tion God  should  have  gathered  so  many  men  of  this 
character,  men  taught  the  preciousness  of  religious  lib- 
erty by  their  own  experience  of  the  bitter  arrogance 
and  cruelty  of  prelatical  and  unchurching  tyranny,  to 
colonize  this  country,  and  to  build  up  in  it  the  temple 
of  universal  freedom.  Is  it  not  most  remarkable,  that 
the  seed-corn  of  the  population  of  this  country  should 
have  been  gathered  out  of  the  persecuted  religionists  of 
so  many  other  countries  ?  To  the  admirable  Huguenots 
of  France  we  owe  as  noble  a  line  of  descendants,  in 
the  stream  of  our  native  patriots,  as  to  their  brother 
puritans  of  England.  Our  institutions  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty  have  also  received  no  little  portion  of 
their  breath  of  life  from  the  free  and  hospitable  Dutch, 
who  gave  our  Puritan  fathers  an  asylum  from  prelati- 
cal persecution,  and  then  fled  with  or  followed  them 
into  the  American  wilderness,  to  build  up  there  the 
foundations  of  many  generations.  We  owe ,,  almost  all 
our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  the  support  of  it 
through  the  American  Revolution,  to  the  indomitable 
spirit  of  men  cast  out  and  persecuted  by  the  Establish- 
ed Episcopal  Church  of  England ;  while,  to  the  sup- 
porters, defendants,  and  descendants  of  that  church,  in 
its  exclusiveness,  we  owe  almost  nothing,  but  the  re- 
vival, in  this  very  day,  of  an  unchurching,  intolerant 


RELIGIOUS     LIBERTY.  107 

proscription.  One  of  the  causes,  indeed,  of  our  Revo- 
lution itself,  was  an  attempt  to  set  up  and  enforce  an 
Episcopal  Establishment. 

The  church,  from  which  this  proscription  comes,  is, 
in  its  allowance,  laying  again  the  foundation  of  that 
religious  persecution,  from  which,  please  God,  his  own 
rich  grace,  and  the  constitution  of  government  with 
which  he  has  blessed  us,  shall  ever  keep  our  churches 
free.  But  if  this  proscription  in  theory  is  adhered  to 
and  defended,  it  will  be  no  thanks  to  the  Episcopal 
church  in  this  country  that  the  prisons  are  not  here  also 
opened  to  nonconformists,  and  that  the  stake  itself  is 
not  erected,  with  fagots  piled  around  it,  and  men  call- 
ed dissenters  chained  within  its  fires.  Already,  in  the 
list  of  their  dioceses,  the  Episcopal  bishops  range  the 
"whole  population  of  every  State  in  the  Union  as  be- 
longing to  The  Church. 


AMUSING  FORM  OF  THE  UNCHURCHING  EDICT. 

The  edict,  which  went  forth  lately,  in  the  course  of 
this  controversy,  deliberately  unchurching  all  the 
churches  of  Christ  that  have  sprung  up  for  the  last 
three  hundred  years,  was  a  most  singular  exhibition  of 
church  pride  and  intolerance.  The  Quixotic  chivalry 
and  absurdity  of  such  a  bull  of  excommunication  is 
more  than  ever  manifest,  when  you  remember  that  it 
comes  out  of  a  church,  which  itself  was  not  regarded 
as  a  church,  even  by  the  Episcopal  sect  in  England, 
until  within  a  few  years  ;  and  that  the  English  church 
itself  is  one  of  those  communities  that,  in  her  schismatic 


108  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

separation  from  the  church  of  Rome,  has  sprung  irp 
within  three  centuries.  We  have  then  the  curious 
spectacle,  in  this  country,  of  a  portion  of  one  of  the 
smallest  religious  sects  in  it,  legitimatized  only  within 
a  few  years  by  its  foreign  parent,  that  parent  being 
herself  a  schismatic  church  three  hundred  years  ago, 
standing  forth  before  the  religious  world,  and  declaring 
that  every  church  of  Christ,  besides  that  one  httle  sect, 
is  no  church,  but  a  mushroom  schismatical  community  I 
Baptists,  Methodists,  Congregationalists,  Presbyterians, 
Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Dutch  Reformed,  German  Re- 
formed, Independents,  every  possible  denomination  of 
Christians  out  of  the  Episcopal  sect,  are  denied  the 
name,  essence,  and  rights  of  churches  of  Christ ;  and 
to  cover  and  excuse  this  exclusion,  are  branded  with 
the  reproach  of  being  wilfully  and  knowingly  schisma- 
tics,  unlawfully  baptized ;  and  if,  by  any  possibility. 
Christians,  yet  such  only  in  individual  loneliness,  and 
without  the  sure  salvation  of  the  magic  of  apostolical 
succession,  prelatical  consecration,  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, and  Episcopal  confirmation.  If  this  be  not  a  lu- 
dicrous development  of  the  exhilarating  gas  in  the  bal- 
loon of  hierarchical  arrogance,  we  know  not  what  is. 
But  to  crown  all,  the  magnanimous  offer  is  made,  if 
all  the  churches  of  the  said  unhappy  flocks  of  Baptists, 
Methodists,  Congregationalists,  Presbyterians,  and 
others,  should  at  any  time  take  fire,  and  burn  to  the 
ground,  then  the  said  Episcopal  sect  will,  out  of  com- 
passion to  those  under  God's  uncovenanted  mercies, 
open  her  charitable  doors,  and  even  give  them  that 
bread  and  wine,  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers, 
for  300  years,  ever  received  lawfully,  and  which  now. 


RELIGIOUS     LIBERTY.  109 

for  the  first  time,  being  of  apostolical  succession,  can 
administer  nourishment  and  life  to  their  souls  ! 

Now,  in  all  probability,  what  would  become  of  our 
civil  and  religious  liberties,  if  a  party  holding  such  pre- 
tensions as  these  could  get  the  power  1  We  speak  in 
regard  to  these  pretensions  the  more  unhesitatingly 
and  the  more  severely,  because  Episcopal  bishops  of  a 
large  and  noble  spirit,  superior  to  these  lunacies  of  bi- 
gotry, have  themselves  marked  these  pretensions  for 
the  same  scorn.  And  whatever  a  portion  of  the  Epis- 
copal clergy  in  this  country  may  do,  the  laity  will  not 
cease  to  reject  and  repudiate  those  pretensions.  They 
constitute  the  groundwork  of  religious  persecution,  the 
inoculating  virus  of  the  plague,  the  seeds  of  a  harvest 
of  intolerance,  if,  in  a  cold  climate  like  ours,  a  hot-bed 
of  power  can  be  prepared  for  them. 

The  principle  of  intolerance  comes  from  the  pride  of 
our  nature.  A  man  may  really  be  too  pious  to  indulge 
pride  personally,  but  put  it  in  the  form  of  a  sect,  pride 
of  sect,  and  it  begins  to  wear  the  appearance  of  a  vir- 
tue. Thus  this  pious  man  communes  with  it ;  then,  in 
the  exaltation  of  his  sect,  this  master  sin  of  the  fallen 
soul  speaks  out  in  bitterness  and  cruelty  to  those  that 
differ,  that  will  not  conform  to  that  one  sect ;  and  though 
a  man  may  be  a  Christian  brother,  it  spurns  him  as  if 
he  were  a  dog ;  it  no  more  regards  his  feelings  than  if 
he  were  made  of  wood  ;  it  denies  his  children  Christian 
burial ;  it  will  martyr  him  for  a  cap  or  a  surplice. 

CANONS  OF  ARCHBISHOP  BANCROFT. 

I  have  asked  what  would  become  of  our  religious 

6* 


110  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

liberties,  if  such  men  should  get  the  power.  I  will  an- 
swer the  question  by  referring  you  to  the  church  canons 
prepared  by  and  under  that  incarnation  of  hierarchical 
bigotry,  Archbishop  Bancroft.  The  severe  sufferings 
endured  by  the  Puritans  under  these  canons,  although 
unlawfully  inflicted,  are  only  the  inevitable  result  of 
such  anathemas  in  every  age,  when  the  ecclesiastical 
curse  is  sustained  by  power.  The  first  canon  declares 
that  "  whosoever  shall  affirm  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land by  law  established  is  not  a  true  and  apostolical 
church,  let  him  be  excommunicated  ipso  facto,  and  not 
restored  but  only  by  the  Archbishop,  after  his  repent- 
ance and  public  revocation  of  his  wicked  error." 

Canon  IV.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  the  form  of 
God's  worship  in  the  Church  of  England  established  by 
law  and  contained  in  the  book  of  common  prayer  and 
administration  of  sacraments  is  a  corrupt,  superstitious 
and  unlawful  worship,  or  contains  anything  repug- 
nant to  scripture,  let  him  be  excommunicated,  &c. 

Canon  V.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  any  of  the 
thirty-nine  articles  of  the  church,  agreed  upon  in  the 
year  1562  for  avoiding  diversity  of  opinions,  and  for 
establishing  consent  touching  true  rehgion,  are  in  any 
part  superstitious  or  erroneous,  or  such  as  he  may  not 
with  a  good  conscience  subscribe  to,  let  him  be  ex- 
communicated, &c. 

Canon  VI.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England  by  the  law 
established  are  wicked,  antichristian,  superstitious,  or 
such  as,  being  commanded  by  lawful  authority,  good 
men  may  not  with  a  good  conscience  approve,  or  as 


RELIGIOUS     LIBERTY.  Ill 

occasion  requires,  subscribe,  let  him  be  excommuni" 
Gated,  &c. 

Canon  VII.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  England  by  archbishops,  bishops, 
deans,  and  archdeacons,  and  the  rest  that  bear  office  in 
the  same,  is  anti-christian  or  repugnant  to  the  word  of 
God,  let  him  be  excommunicated,  &c. 

Canon  VIII.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  the  form 
and  manner  of  making  and  consecrating  bishops,  priests, 
or  deacons,  contains  anything  repugnant  to  the  Word 
of  God,  or  that  persons  so  made  and  consecrated 
are  not  lawfully  made,  or  need  any  other  calling  or 
ordination  to  their  divine  offices,  let  him  be  excommu- 
nicated, &c. 

Canon  IX.  Whosoever  shall  separate  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England,  as  it  is  approved 
by  the  Apostles'  rules,  and  combine  together  in  a  new 
brotherhood,  accounting  those  who  conform  to  the  doc- 
trines, rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  church,  unmeet  for 
their  communion,  let  them  be  excommunicated,  &c. 

Canon  X.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  such  minis- 
ters as  refuse  to  subscribe  to  the  form  and  manner  of 
God's  worship  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  their 
adherents,  may  take  to  themselves  truly  the  name  of 
another  church  not  established  by  law,  and  shall  pub- 
lish that  their  pretended  church  has  groaned  under  the 
burden  of  certain  grievances  imposed  on  them  by  the 
Church  of  England,  let  them  be  excommunicated,  &c. 

Canon  XI.  Whosoever  shall  affirm  that  there  are 
within  this  realm  other  meetings,  assemblies,  or  congre- 
gations of  the  king's  born  subjects,  than  such  as  are 
established  by  law,  which  may  rightly  challenge  to 


112  FOURTH     LECTURE 

themselves  the  name  of  true  and  lawful  churches,  let 
him  be  excommunicated,  &c. 

Mark  this  last  canon.  JYo  bishop,  no  church  ;  no 
church  out  of  the  established  church  ;  no  church  out  of 
the  Episcopal  church ;  any  person  who  shall  dare  assert 
the  contrary,  shall  be  excommunicated. 

You  see  here  the  iron  hand  of  despotism  laid  upon 
all  diversity  of  opinions,  that  is,  upon  all  liberty  of 
thought  in  that  province,  in  which,  of  all  others,  the 
soul  ought  to  be  most  free,  the  province  of  religion. 
But  what  is  most  remarkable,  you  see  here  the  very 
same  odious  assertion,  only  carried  a  little  further  out, 
which  has  been  put  forth  and  reiterated  among  us, 
namely,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  the  only  church, 
and  that  all  other  churches  are  pretended  churches,  and 
all  other  ministers  pretended  ministers,  and  to  be 
excommimicated.  Let  any  man  read  over  the  Eleventh 
Canon  cited  above,  and  compare  it  with  the  recent 
fulmination  in  the  newspapers,  that  none  of  the  com- 
munities which  have  sprung  up  for  the  last  three 
hundred  years  out  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  calling 
themselves  churches,  are  to  be  considered  as  churches, 
and  let  him  remember  the  greater  light  and  liberty 
under  which  we  live,  than  that  w^hich  Bancroft  enjoy- 
ed, and  he  will  at  once  give  the  palm  of  illiberality  and 
bigotry  to  the  modern  fulmination  ',  he  will  say  that  a 
spirit  which  in  the  United  States  in  this  century  could 
entertain  a  theory  of  such  wholesale  exclusiveness, 
would,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  have  gone  farther  than 
Bancroft  or  Laud  himself  in  the  practice  of  wholesale 
persecution,  and  would  now  be  likely,  if  opportunity 
offered,  again  to  reduce  such  theory  to  such  practice 


RELIGIOUS     LIBERTY.  113 

The  theory  of  these  arrog;ant  religionists,  the  pro- 
fessed disciples  of  Christ,  who  deliver  over  all  persons 
who  do  not  belong  to  their  church,  to  the  uncovenant- 
ed  mercies  of  God,  as  out  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  re- 
minds us  of  the  well  known  blessing,  which  an  ex- 
tremely orthodox  layman  used  to  ask  at  table ;  "  Lord 
bless  me  and  my  wife,  my  son  John  and  his  wife,  us 
four  and  no  more."  This  man  was  High  Church  in 
his  benedictions.  His  theology  led  him  always  to  re- 
mark, whenever  the  subject  of  human  merit  was  under 
consideration,  that  men  deserve  simply  and  only  to  be 
born,  to  die,  and  to  go  to  hell.  There  was  one  good 
thing  in  such  a  theology,  namely,  that  it  was  univer- 
sal and  not  partial,  no  respecter  of  persons.  But  to 
have  such  a  theology  for  a  particular  part,  whom  your 
fulminations  consign  to  hell,  is  indeed  monstrous. 

Now  the  theology  of  Rome  says  of  all  dissenters 
that  they  are  heretics,  and  deserve  simply  and  only  to 
perish  everlastingly.  They  do  not  deserve  to  be  born, 
and  if  Rome  could  do  it,  every  heretical  child  would 
be  smothered  in  infancy.  This,  too,  is  the  voice  of  a 
portion  of  the  Episcopal  church,  that  every  person  who 
does  not  belong  to  that  church,  is  a  schismatic,  and  ac- 
cursed. The  Romish  Church  fulminates  her  thunders 
loud  and  clear,  Every  heretic  accursed  !  The  Estab- 
lished Episcopal  Church,  which  is  one  of  the  many  re- 
ligious sects  in  England,  imitates  the  same  thunders, 
Every  dissenter  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God  ! 
The  Episcopal  Church,  which  is  an  incomparably 
smaller  religious  sect  in  this  country,  imitates  the  same 
thunders,  but  more  feebly.  There  is  no  church  but  our 
church,  nor  any  regular  salvation  out  of  it !      Each  of 


114  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

these  sects  in  turn  says  of  the  Pope's  bulls,  "  That's 
my  thunder  !"  Even  in  this  country,  where  every 
Church,  Romish,  Episcopal,  Baptist,  Methodist,  Con- 
gregational, Presbyterian,  All,  owe  their  religious 
liberty,  even  their  liberty  to  scold  at  others,  to  an  inde- 
pendent, persecuted,  Puritan  Church  in  the  wilderness, 
the  word  dissent  has  been  bandied  about,  and  a  faint 
and  feeble  imitation  of  the  Established  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  her  application  of  the  term  dissenters,  has  been 
attempted  !  Could  anything  be  more  ridiculous  1 
Well  do  the  supporters  of  such  assumptions  in  a  free 
land  like  this,  deserve  to  be  called  the  Chinamen  of 
Christendom. 

In  the  intolerance  of  Rome  there  is  at  least  the 
merit  of  originality  ;  it  is  likewise  on  a  large  scale  j 
there  is  a  certain  savage  sublimity  about  it,  everything 
in  the  extreme,  everything  furious  ;  fulminating  bulls, 
racks,  tortures,  fires.  In  the  intolerance  and  arrogance 
of  a  second-hand  Episcopal  sect,  unacknowledged,  a 
year  or  two  ago,  even  by  the  English  Church,  through 
which  they  claim  parentage,  there  is  such  a  pitiful imi- 
tativeness  and  inherent  weakness,  that  it  moves  our 
shame  to  notice  it.  And  yet,  being  suffered  to  sleep  so 
long  time  without  notice,  it  has  gained  a  factitious  im- 
portance, and  having  been  developed  even,  in  the  mis- 
sionary field,  it  shows  a  most  dangerous  and  oppres- 
sive tendency,  which  makes  it  necessary  now  to  ex- 
pose both  its  ludicrous  folly  and  its  melancholy  wick- 
edness. It  is  but  an  off-shoot  of  the  system  which 
forms  the  subject  of  these  lectures,  The  Hierarchical 
Despotism. 


NECESSITY     OF     RESISTANCE.  115 


NECESSITY    OF    RESISTING    THIS    DESPOTISM. 

The  spirit  of  this  despotism  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
Christian  to  resist ;  and  that,  not  merely  because  such  a 
despotism  is  subversive  of  the  rights  of  every  individual 
disciple  of  Christ,  but  because  the  truth  and  vitality  of 
the  gospel  cannot  stand  along  with  it.  Thus  Paul 
speaks  of  those  "  false  brethren  unawares  brought  in, 
who  came  in  privily  to  spy  out  our  liberty,  which  we 
have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  us  into 
bondage  :  to  whom  we  gave  place  by  subjection,  no, 
not  for  an  hour  ;  that  the  truth  of  the  gospel  might 
CONTINUE  WITH  YOU."  If  the  truth  of  the  gospel  is  to 
continue,  such  bondage  must  be  resisted  ;  but  if  the 
gospel  must  be  given  up,  if  such  bondage  must  be  en- 
dured, there  are  many  who  would  prefer  undisguised 
Popery  to  the  lordship  of  diocesan  episcopacy.  If  we 
are  to  worship  the  sign  of  the  beast,  let  us  have  him 
in  puris  naturalihus,  and  we  shall  know  better  how  to 
deal  with  him. 

From  the  beast  in  purls  naturalihus,  from  the  Anti- 
Christian  Church  of  Rome,  as  in  her  blackest  corrup- 
tion the  only  representative  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
on  earth,  prelacy  traces  her  descent  and  authority. 
"  She  boasts,"  says  the  author  of  The  Primitive  Church, 
"her  ordinances,  her  sacraments,  transmitted  for  a 
thousand  years,  unimpaired,  uncontaminated,  through 
such  hands !  High  Church  Episcopacy  proudly  draws 
her  own  apostolical  succession  through  this  pit  of  pol- 
lution, and  then  the  followers  of  Christ,  who  care  not 
to  receive  such  grace  from  such  hands,  she  calmly  de- 


116  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

livers  over  to  God's  uncovenanted  mercies!  Nay- 
more,  multitudes  of  this  communion  are  now  engaged 
in  the  strange  work  of  *  unprotestantizing  the  churches' 
which  have  washed  themselves  from  these  defilements. 
The  strife  is,  with  a  proud  array  of  talents,  of  learning, 
and  of  episcopal  power,  to  bury  all  spiritual  religion 
again  in  the  grave  of  forms,  to  shroud  the  light  of 
truth  in  the  darkness  of  popish  tradition,  and  to  sink 
the  church  of  God  once  more  into  that  abyss  of  deep 
and  dreadful  darkness  from  which  she  emerged  at  the 
dawn  of  the  Reformation.  In  the  beautiful  and  ex- 
pressive language  of  Milton,  their  strife  is  to  *  re-involve 
us  in  that  pitchy  cloud  of  infernal  darkness  where  we 
shall  never  more  see  the  sun  of  truth  again,  never  hope 
for  the  cheerful  dawn,  never  more  hear  the  bird  of 
morning  sing.'" 

I  have  spoken  already  at  large  on  the  intimate  con- 
nection between  our  religious  and  civil  liberties.  One 
of  the  objections  powerfully  urged  against  episcopacy 
in  the  unanswerable  work  of  Mr.  Coleman  on  The 
Primitive  Church,  is  its  monarchical  and  anti-republi- 
can tendency.  On  the  other  hand,  the  system  of  reli- 
gion in  the  New  Testament  "  harmonizes  with  and 
fosters  our  free  institutions." 

"  There  is  a  harmony  between  government  and  reli- 
gion. There  is  a  mutual  relation  and  adaptation  be- 
tween our  free,  republican  government,  and  a  popular 
ecclesiastical  organization,  like  that  of  the  apostoHcal 
and  primitive  church.  Such  a  system  harmonizes  with 
our  partialities  and  prejudices  ;  it  coincides  with  our 
national  usages;  it  is  congenial  to  all  our  civil  institu- 
tions.    This  is  a  consideration  of  great  iraportann*?     ^^ 


NECESSITY     OF     RESISTANCE.  117 

is  enough  of  itself  to  outweigh,  a  thousand  fold,  all 
that  prelacy  ever  dreamed  of  in  its  own  favor.  Indeed, 
the  spiritual  despotism  of  that  system,  its  absolute  mo- 
narchical powers,  constitute  one  strong  objection  to  it. 
It  is  the  rehgion  of  despots  and  tyrants.  Such  the 
papal  form  of  it  has  always  been  ;  and  such,  we  cannot 
doubt,  is  still  one  inherent  characteristic  of  high,  exclu- 
sive Episcopacy,  however  it  may  be  modified  by  cir- 
cumstances. The  Church  of  England,  from  the  time 
of  its  establishment,  says  Macaulay, '  continued  to  be, 
for  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  the  servile 
handmaid  of  monarchy,  the  steady  enemy  of  public 
liberty.'  James,  the  tyrant  of  that  age,  uniformly 
silenced  every  plea  in  behalf  of  the  Puritans,  with  the 
significant  exclamation,  '  No  bishop,  no  king.'  So 
indispensable  is  the  hierarchy  to  a  monarchy.  But 
in  a  free  republic  it  is  a  monstrous  anomaly." 

The  exclusive,  intolerant  spirit  of  Episcopacy  is 
justly  regarded  by  this  writer  as  one  of  its  most  obnox- 
ious characteristics.  "That  this  single  church," 
he  says,  "  should  assume  to  be  the  only  true 
church,  and  its  clergy  the  only  authorized  minis- 
ters •  that  the  only  valid  ordinances  and  sacraments 
are  administered  in  their  communion;  that  they 
alone  of  all  to  whom  salvation  by  grace  is  so  freely 
published,  are  received  into  covenant  mercy,— all  this 
appears  to  us  as  nothing  else  than  a  proud  and  sancti- 
monious self-righteousness,  which  we  can  only  regard 
with  unmingled  abhorrence.  There  is  an  atrocity  of 
character  in  this  spirit,  which  can  unchurch  the  saints 
of  God  of  every  age,  in  every  Christian  communion 
save  one,  and  consign  them,  if  not  to  perdition,  to  God's 


118  F  0  UR  TH     L  E  C  T  U  RE. 

uncovenanted  mercies  ; — in  all  this  there  is  an  atrocity 
of  character,  which,  in  other  days,  has  found,  as  it 
seems  to  us,  its  just  expression  in  the  fires  of  Smith- 
field,  and  in  the  slow  torture  oi  ihe  auto-da-fe.  Episco- 
pacy holds  no  fellowship,  no  communion  with  us, — dis- 
senters. *  The  Episcopal  church,  deriving  its  episcopal 
power  in  regular  succession  from  the  holy  Apostles, 
through  the  venerable  church  of  England,'  makes 
public  declaration,  through  its  bishops,  that  it  has  '  no 
ecclesiastical  connection  with  the  followers  of  Luther 
and  Calvin.'  Be  it  so.  To  all  this  we  have  no  right 
to  object.  But  we  have  a  right  to  our  own  conclusions 
respecting  the  exclusiveness  of  such  a  religion. 

"  It  is  also  the  same  spirit  for  which  high-church 
episcopacy  has  ever  been  so  much  distinguished, — that 
is,  unmitigated  hatred  of  the  religion  of  the  Puritans. 
'  Laud  and  his  party  beg^an,  about  the  end  of  Eliza- 
beth's reign,  by  preaching  the  divine  right,  as  it  is 
called,  or  absolute  indispensability  of  episcopacy  ;  a 
doctrine,  of  which  the  first  traces,  as  I  apprehend,  are 
found  about  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  They  in- 
sisted on  the  necessity  of  episcopal  succession,  regularly 
derived  from  the  Apostles.  They  drew  an  inference 
from  this  tenet,  that  ordination  by  presbyters  was,  in 
all  cases,  null."  Of  Lutherans  and  Calviriists,  they  be- 
gan now^  to  speak,  as  aliens,  to  whom  they  were  not 
at  all  related,  and  schismatics,  with  whom  they  held 
no  communion  ;  nay,  as  wanting  the  very  essence  of 
Christian  society." 

Precisely  this  intolerance  of  the  age  of  Laud  is  now 
exhibited  in  theory,  and,  so  far  as  there  is  power  and 
opportunity,  carried  out  in   practice,  at  this  very  day, 


CONCLUSION.  119 

by  the  Apostolical  Successionists  in  the  Episcopal 
church.  On  missionary  ground  it  is  enacted  by  in- 
struction and  authority,  in  the  name  of  the  whole 
Episcopal  denomination ;  and  as  noble  a  band  of  mis- 
sionaries as  the  world  has  ever  seen  since  the  days  of 
the  Apostles — a  band  of  men  who  had  occupied  the 
untrodden  missionary  field  near  twenty  years  before 
the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country  had  a  single  mis- 
sionary in  the  world, — are  denounced  by  the  bishop  of 
that  church  as  schismatics,  and  unauthorized  intruders 
into  the  work  of  the  ministry. 


CONCLUSION. 

It  is  painful  to  be  compelled  to  say  these  things. 
Infinitely  rather,  if  episcopalian  exclusiveness  permitted 
it,  would  we  be  found  praising  the  missionary  zeal  of 
the  sect  that  unchurches  all  other  sect  sin  Christendom  ; 
infinitely  rather  would  we  unite  with  them,  as  mutual 
Christians  ought  to  do,  in  spreading  the  gospel  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour.  Thank  God,  a  time  is  coming,  when 
this  bitter,  poisonous  leaven  of  spiritual  pride  and  des- 
potism shall  be  overcome  by  love  ;  when  this  arrogant 
assumption  of  being  the  only  true  church  shall  he 
chased  out  of  the  world,  to  the  place  that  it  belongs 
to.      It  is  the  very  spirit  of  him  who  said. 

Better  to  reign  in  hell,  than  serve  in  Heaven  ! 
And  except  this  pride  give  way  to  charity,  then,  even 
in  heathen  lands,  will  Christian  sects  build  up  an  arena 
to  fight  out  the   stormy  conflicts  that   disgrace  their 
Christianity  at  home.     And  as  in  the  very  presence  of 


120  FOURTH     LECTURE. 

the  Saviour,  but  a  few  hours  before  his  death,  there 
was  a  strife  among  his  disciples  who  should  be  the 
greatest,  so  now,  in  the  most  sacred  place  of  his  ser- 
vice on  earth,  amidst  perishing  unbelievers  in  the  dark- 
ness of  idolatry,  will  this  unchurching  spirit  fight,  as  a 
frightful  spectacle  to  angels  and  to  men,  against  those 
who  choose  not  to  range  themselves  under  the  banners 
of  "  episcopacy,  confirmation,  and  a  liturgy  !"  There 
can  be  no  peace  or  charity,  along  with  the  "  curst  un- 
godliness" of  such  zeal  ;  and  we  may  rest  assured  that 
except  God  cast  out  this  devil  of  intolerance  from  our 
system,  we  are  not  the  people  whom  he  can  use  to 
spread  the  gospel  of  Christ  through  the  world.  In  the 
name  of  a  world  lying  in  wickedness,  and  demanding 
all  our  united  efforts  to  save  it ;  in  the  name  of  Him, 
who,  though  he  was  Lord  of  all,  became  the  servant  of 
all,  that  he  might  bring  us  as  freemen  to  God ;  in  the 
name  of  that  humility  and  gentleness,  of  which  he  set 
us  all  such  an  example,  when  he,  our  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter, washed  his  disciples'  feet  j  let  us,  in  ourselves  and 
in  others,  put  this  wicked  intolerance  away  from  us 
with  sorrow  and  shame ;  let  us  crucify  that  spirit, 
which  so  crucifies  the  Saviour.  **'  For  now  abideth 
Faith,  Hope,  Charity,  these  three  ;  but  the  greatest 
of  these  is  CHARITY." 


QESl  MO  Nil  JOaA! 


IMPORTANT  WORKS 

PUBLiSHiD  BY 

SAXTON  &  MILES, 

205  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


D'AUBIGNE'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION,  com- 
plete, with  all  the  Notes,  in  one  volume,  price  75  cents,  in 
cloth  50  cents. 

NEANDER'S   HISTORY  OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   RELIGION 


(^  in  the  first  three  Centuries.     One  vol.  8vo.  cloth,  ^1  50. 

^  NEANDER'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  PLANTING  AND  TRAIN- 

}  ING  OF  THE  CHURCH   by  the  Apostles.     Translated  bv 

\  Ryland.     1  vol.  8vo.  cloth,  $1  50. 

}   SHORT'S   HISTORY   OF   THE   CHURCH   OF  ENGLAND. 

<        ]  vol.  cloth,  ^1  50. 

\   FOX'S^BOOK  OF  MARTYRS,  with  plates,  1  vol.  8vo.  cloth, 
[       $1  50.  ' 

CONVERSATIONS  ON  THE  PARABLES,  by  Lord  Stanley. 
Cloth,  37|  cents. 

LEA;    OR,  THE  BAPTISM  IN  JORDAN,  by  Strauss,   cloth 
50  cents. 

SARTOR  RESARTUS,  by  Thomas  Carlyle.     12|  cents. 

MUSIC  WITHOUT  A  MASTER,  by  a  Professor.     25  cents. 

FARNHAM'S  TRAVELS  IN  THE  CALIFORNIAS.     4  Nos. 
each  25  cents.  ' 

BORROWS  BIBLE  IN  SPAIN.    37i  cents. 

THE  LIVES  OF  POPE  ALEXANDER  and  his  Son  CJESAR 
BORGIA.     37|  cents. 

LLORENTE'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  INQUISITION.    37j  cts. 

THE  ERRORS    OF   ROMANISM,    by    Archbishop    Whately. 
25  cent?. 

WHATELY'S    KINGDOM    OF    CHRIST    DELINEATED.— 

25  cents. 
THE  BANK  OF  FAITH,  by  Rev.  S.  Huntington.     50  cents. 
JAMAICA,  its  Past  and  Present  State,  by  James  M.Phillippo,  for 

twenty  years  a  Baptist  Missionary  in  that  Island.     50  cents. 
REV.  MR.    CHEEVER'S   LECTURES    in    reply    to    Bishop 

Hughes,  on  the  Mixture  of  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  Power  in 

the  Government  of  the  Middle  Ages,  37  1-2  cents. 


4872  YB^47m 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


bemmary  Lit 

illllll 


1    1012  01210  9049 


♦ 


